Home
California Grand Jury Reports
County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
2006- 2007
San Bernardino County
GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
2006- 2007
editorial COMMITE
Back – Gary Moran, Burrel Woodring, Roderic Moers
Front – JoAnn Miller, Lois Long- Chair, Carol Sharp
The Editorial Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their hard
work and invaluable assistance in the preparation of the Final Report of the 2006- 2007 San Bernardino
County Grand Jury.
Graphic Arts Silvia Schreiber, Graphic Designer
Cover Design Silvia Schreiber, Graphic Designer
Photographs Silvia Schreiber, Graphic Designer
Printing Services County Printing Services Personnel
Typing/ Preparation Melonee Vartanian, Grand Jury Assistant
351 North Arrowhead Avenue, Room 200, Courthouse
San Bernardino, CA 92415- 0243 • ( 909) 387- 3820
Fax ( 909) 387- 4170
GRAND JURY COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FOREMAN’S STATEMENT
In accordance with the Constitution of the State of California ( Article 1, Section
23), each county in the state shall draw and summon one or more Grand Juries each year.
The citizen- residents of San Bernardino County have been performing this public service
and duty for more than 150 years.
Drawing on volunteers from throughout the county and each supervisorial district,
the 19- member 2006/ 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury was impaneled and sworn
in for one year, effective July 1, 2006. ( Details of Grand Jury background, membership,
duties, obligations, and commitments are given in the appendix at the end of this report.)
What follows is the consensus Final Report of the activities, investigations, finding
and recommendation of the 2006/ 2007 Grand Jury. It represents the year- long effort to
look into local government toward the goal of improving the function of government in
service to county residents. This report does not include many investigations conducted
which were later deemed not of sufficient merit, quality or quantity to present to the
public.
In addition to its civil investigations, the Grand Jury assisted the County District
Attorney with five investigative hearings on criminal matters.
Service on a Grand Jury can be considered a privilege and a duty. The men and
women of this Grand Jury applied themselves with a full measure of both. The thousands
of hours they collectively devoted to learning about government and its complexities,
their ability to collect, analyze and distill great amounts of information to concise,
meaningful reports, and their determination to be fair and honest in their investigations
should be greatly appreciated.
In the quest for knowledge about County government operations, Jurors spent
evenings and off- days attending functions such as graduation ceremonies of the Sheriff’s
Academy in San Bernardino, the “ State of the County” presentation in Ontario, and sessions
of “ Service First,” the countywide customer service improvement program. In addition,
Jurors in their investigations, traveled the county to such diverse locations as Rancho
Cucamonga to the west, Barstow to the north and Yucca Valley to the east, most often on
off- days and using their own vehicles.
On another level, the giving of time by Grand Jurors to their public service, while
sacrificing personal agendas such as vacations, is worthy of a very strong Thank You. To
several Jurors, whose commitment and effort were truly “ above and beyond,” there is a
special thanks owed, especially from their fellow Jurors.
Notwithstanding Juror effort, this report is in no small way the result of the high
level of access given by the County Board of Supervisors ( all of whom were individually
interviewed), the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and other elected officials, as well as county
government department heads and individual county employees. A particular note of
access is made of County Administrative Officer, Mark Uffer, who met at least six times
during our year with the Full Grand Jury or its committees. We found little reluctance by
the people in the county government to talk to the Grand Jury in confidence about any
subject governing their jobs or government operations.
A special recognition must be given to two people who have together shaped
County Grand Juries, including this one, for more than 30 years. Sue Shuey, Grand Jury
Assistant, and Clark Hansen, Jr., Deputy District Attorney and Grand Jury Legal Advisor.
Their knowledge and guidance was invaluable.
On behalf of the 2006/ 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury, I trust this report
of our service in the interest of good government will prove to be beneficial to all the
residents of the county.
ALFRED J. DUBIEL
Foreman
2006/ 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
DEDICATION AND 54 YEARS OF SERVICE
Susan ( Sue) Shuey and Clark A. Hansen, Jr.
Susan ( Sue) Shuey, Grand Jury Assistant, and Clark A. Hansen, Jr., Grand Jury Legal
Advisor, have a combined 54 years of professional, dedicated service to San Bernardino
County’s Grand Jury.
The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury is proud to dedicate this final report to these two
outstanding public servants on their retirement this year.
Sue Shuey began her career with the county in 1968 as a clerk in the County
Administrative Office. She was promoted several times in the CAO office and in 1974, she
was assigned as secretary to the Grand Jury and as secretary to the Presiding Judge. She
also was supervisor for six judicial secretaries. In 1983, the new Court Executive Office
relieved her of her supervisor duties and assigned her full time to the Grand Jury. That
was 33 years, and 627 Grand Jury members ago.
Clark A. Hansen, Jr. graduated with honors in 1963 from USC Law School. He
became a San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney in 1964 and he rose to the
position of Chief Deputy District Attorney. He left the District Attorney’s Office in 1978 to
return to the private practice of law. In 1986, he returned to the District Attorney’s Office
to become the legal advisor for the Grand Jury. In 1996, Clark retired from the County as
a Deputy District Attorney. On his retirement, he was hired by the District Attorney as a
special consultant and contracted to advise the Grand Jury until his retirement this year.
2006- 2007 GRAND JURY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Alfred J. Dubiel Foreman
Victor G. Edinburgh Foreman Pro Tem
JoAnn L. Miller Secretary
Marianne Della Marna Assistant Secretary
Ron Brooks Sergeant- at- Arms
Ellen L. Miller Assistant Sergeant- at- Arms
Ron Brooks Pinon Hills
Jeanne Choisnet San Bernardino
Marianne Della Marna Alta Loma
Alfred J. Dubiel Ontario
Victor G. Edinburgh San Bernardino
William E. Howard Rialto
Lois C. Long Lytle Creek
Thomas Ma Ontario
Clyde Metzler Victorville
Ellen L. Miller Fontana
JoAnn L. Miller San Bernardino
Roderic J. Moers San Bernardino
Gary Moran Yucaipa
Roy H. Nierman Highland
Carol Sharp Crestline
Kenneth D. Taylor Running Springs
Elias G. Valdez Running Springs
Burrel S. Woodring Yucaipa
Dennis Zimmerman Chino Hills
RESIGNATIONS:
Suzanne T. Reading, August 2006
Presiding Judge 2006- 07 Larry W. Allen
Legal Advisor Clark A. Hansen, Jr.
Grand Jury Assistant Susan L. Shuey ( Retired)
Grand Jury Assistant Melonee A. Vartanian
san bernardino county grand jury
2006- 2007
From left to right:
Back row – Kenneth Taylor, Dennis Zimmerman, Victor Edinburgh, Ron Brooks,
Gary Moran, Alfred Dubiel- Foreman, Thomas Ma
Center row – Burrel Woodring, William Howard, JoAnn Miller, Roy Nierman,
Elias Valdez, Roderic Moers
Front row – Sue Shuey, Clark Hansen, Ellen Miller, Carol Sharp,
Jeanne Choisnet, Lois Long, Melonee Vartanian
Not pictured – Marianne Della Marna and Clyde Metzler
Larry W. Allen, Presiding Judge
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2006- 2007 GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
Page
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE 1
Architecture and Engineering
303 Building 2
Board of Supervisors/ County Counsel 4
County Administrative Officer 9
Human Resources Department 10
Information Services 12
Public Health Department
Animal Care and Control 14
Vector Control Program 15
Risk Management 18
Solid Waste 20
AUDIT/ FISCAL COMMITTEE 23
Assessor 24
COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE 26
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 27
Redevelopment 28
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE 29
Department of Aging and Adult Services
Ombudsman 30
Department of Children’s Services
Foster Care 32
Page
LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE 33
Indigent Defense Contracts 34
Indigent Defense Fee Collection 36
Judicial Benefits 39
Probation 42
Public Defender 47
Sheriff- Coroner
Barstow Sheriff’s Station 50
Central Court Holding 52
Coroner Division 53
Immigration Customs Enforcement ( ICE) 55
Scientific Investigations Division 56
Sheriff’s Training Center/ Academy 57
PUBLIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES COMMITTEE 59
County Fire Department
Communication Center 60
Support Services/ Hazardous Material/ Sewell Training Center 61
Land Use Services 63
Registrar of Voters 65
APPENDIX
About the San Bernardino County Grand Jury
ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE Back – JoAnn Miller, Roy Nierman- Chair, Elias Valdez, Gary Moran
Center – Carol Sharp, Lois Long, Roderic Moers
Front – Ellen Miller, Jeanne Choisnet
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
1
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
The Administrative Committee investigated the following boards, departments
and agencies:
Architecture and Engineering
303 Building
Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Office
Ethics Officer
County Counsel
Human Resources
Information Services
Public Health
Animal Care and Control
Vector Control Program
Risk Management
Solid Waste Management
Four committee members attended all of the Board of Supervisors’ meetings on
Tuesdays.
The committee received one complaint, which resulted in a final report on Solid
Waste Management.
The Administrative Committee and the Public and Support Services Committee
jointly investigated the 303 Building which resulted in a final report.
A comprehensive investigation of the Board of Supervisors and County Counsel
has resulted in a final report.
On behalf of all members of the Administrative Committee, we thank the
members of the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel and her staff, and all
department heads for their cooperation and support during our term.
The actions of the Administrative Committee resulted in the following findings
and recommendations.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
2
ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING
303 BUILDING
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2005, San Bernardino County Supervisors and 303 LLC, a Limited
Liability Corporation, concluded a negotiation for the purchase of a building herein after
called “ 303 building.”
Those departments included in the negotiations from San Bernardino County
were the Board of Supervisors, Real Estate Services, County Counsel, and Architecture
and Engineering.
The purchase agreement for the building was $ 4,625,000 with many fees and
payments added.
The following departments were involved in the purchase:
1. Real Estate Services negotiated the cost structure.
2. County Counsel reviewed the sale contract.
3. Architecture and Engineering was involved, providing cost estimating and
timetable’s aspect.
FINDINGS
The 303 building was purchased for $ 4,625,000.
There was a representation by 303 LLC, based on a consulting services survey
they initiated, that approximately $ 10,000 abatement costs would make the building
habitable.
The County has now spent $ 637,647 for asbestos removal ( see Board of
Supervisors agenda of July 11, 2006) and $ 360,432 for lead- based paint removal ( see
Board of Supervisors agenda of October 31, 2006).
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
3
The County did not perform any environmental surveys prior to purchase, but
relied on a survey by a consulting service hired by 303 LLC.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 01 COUNTY AGENCIES CONDUCT THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS
BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF ANY LAND OR BUILDING.
07- 02 THAT COUNTY COUNSEL INSURE ALL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS ARE
COMPLETED BY THE COUNTY BEFORE AGREEING TO “ AS IS” OR “ WITH
ALL FAULTS” PURCHASES.
07- 03 THAT COUNTY COUNSEL PURSUE REIMBURSEMENT FOR COUNTY
ABATEMENT COSTS OF:
a. ASBESTOS REMOVAL $ 637,647
b. LEAD- BASE PAINT REMOVAL $ 360,432.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
4
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BACKGROUND
This report concerning the Board of Supervisors was initiated after reviewing a
barrage of negative information being reported by the news media that appeared to
reflect a breakdown in trust, communications and cooperation between members of the
Board of Supervisors. The appearance of a dysfunctional Board of Supervisors was
further compounded by unknown media leaks and comments voiced to the news media
concerning various Board of Supervisors decisions.
The concern was that a dysfunctional elected Board of Supervisors was not in
the best interest of those citizens who had placed their trust in their elected
representatives.
Public confidence in the effectiveness of the Board of Supervisors can be eroded
by a breakdown in trust, communications, cooperation and improper or unlawful
conduct by the Board of Supervisors as a whole or by any of its members acting alone.
Conversely, information about the Board of Supervisors based on conjecture,
unfounded information based on rumor or innuendo can also present an image of
dysfunction not based on fact.
Penal Code 925 states “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the
operation, accounts, and records of the officers, department, or function of the county
including those operations, accounts and records of any special legislative district or
other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the
county are serving in their ex- officio capacity as officers of the district.”
The duty of the Grand Jury is to assist the citizens of San Bernardino County to
determine the issues within the Board of Supervisors that may be causing the
dysfunctional public perception and recommend the appropriate corrective action if
needed.
The method that appeared to be the best alternative to ascertain the issues of
the adverse dysfunctional perception was to question each Supervisor separately. A
series of questions were formulated which were similar in nature yet geared to each
Supervisor’s district and background. The questions were structured with the purpose of
determining what, if any, issues existed that were causing the dysfunction, and to bring
these concerns to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. The questions were also
constructed in a manner that would create a sense in each Supervisors mind that there
was a need to stop the discord and resolve the issues between Supervisors for the best
interest of the citizens of their respective districts.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
5
The second purpose for the questioning of each Supervisor was to determine if
in fact the issue of dysfunction was based on erroneous information.
It should be noted that during the preliminary process of interviewing each
Supervisor a problem developed that although each Supervisor had a great deal of
important concerns in their respective districts, four of the five Supervisors understood
the importance of the Grand Jury investigation and made time available in their
respective calendars to appear before the Grand Jury. Several attempts were made to
schedule an appointment for the appearance of the former Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors. Two appointments scheduled before the Grand Jury were cancelled at the
last moment by the former Chairman. The former Chairman gave no explanation why
he was not able or willing to appear before the Grand Jury. The former Chairman was
subsequently elected as the Assessor and no further attempts were made to interview
him by this committee.
The newly elected Supervisor was interviewed on April 19, 2007. Some of the
areas covered in the respective interviews with each Supervisor were:
1. Former County Counsel sudden retirement
2. Appointment of Interim County Counsel
3. Colonies Partners Limited, L. P. settlement
4. Gumport Report concerning Maranatha Jail property purchase
5. Media leaks
6. Partisan Politics
7. Dysfunctional relationships between Supervisors
FINDINGS
It is important to preface the findings in this report by making the following
remarks as they relate to the operations and functioning of San Bernardino County
government.
It is important to remember that it is the people of the County who combine
their pennies, nickels and dollars through various means into one County fund. The
people then elect representatives ( in this case a Supervisor) to administer the funds and
provide services in the best interest of the people. The people place their trust in their
elected representatives to work together and make those decisions, which may not be
popular or accepted by all of the people, but are made in their best interest.
1. The available information determined that the decision to retire was
voluntarily made by the former County Counsel.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
6
The available information did reveal that a few days prior to the
resignation the former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors had berated the
County Counsel in an open workshop meeting, concerning the County Counsel's
failure to follow Board direction and also made comments to the effect that
outside use of legal counsel was being considered.
The inability to satisfy each Supervisor’s needs and the discord between
Supervisors was one of the deciding factors leading to the decision to retire by
the County Counsel.
2. The former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors recommended and
Supervisors approved of an Interim County Counsel, which was a proper
procedure under County Charter: Article 2, Section 7, which states, " Any vacancy
in a County office other than that of supervisor, shall be filled by the Board of
Supervisors by appointment for the unexpired term." There was a concern as to
the Supervisors’ decision to bypass the Assistant County Counsel and the effect
that the decision would have on the Colonies Partners Limited pending litigations
by bringing in an Interim County Counsel with questionable knowledge of the
critical litigation issues. There is no requirement in a County appointed position
that the assistant to that department head automatically become the head or
interim of the department.
This concern became a moot issue when the Board of Supervisors
disregarded the expenditure of County funds already spent on outside legal
representation, all legal counsel advice and settled the suit in favor of Colonies
Partners Limited, L. P.
3. The available information at this time supports the premise that the Board
of Supervisors’ monetary settlement in favor of the Colonies Partners Limited,
L. P. was a decision made by three of the five Supervisors after consideration of
the available alternatives. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to make
the final decision on this civil lawsuit. The Board of Supervisors can consider, but
were not required to follow, legal advice in this civil matter.
4. The purchase of the Maranatha jail facility and the subsequent Gumport
report has been reviewed and disclosed no violations of law. The overall
examination of the issues involved with the Maranatha facility purchase and
information contained in the Gumport report did result in some positive actions
by the Board of Supervisors. The first action was to renegotiate the Platinum
Advisory contract to allow the CAO to terminate the contract at any time. There
was also a reporting requirement to the County by the Platinum lobby contract
when an issue of possible conflict arose. The lobbyist, who was a central issue in
the Gumport report, although still employed by Platinum, is not representing San
Bernardino County. A second positive result was the acquiring of a 700- bed jail
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
7
facility needed by the Sheriff. The facility was placed into service in a relatively
short time and at a substantially reduced cost considering the cost to build a new
jail facility. New additions to the facility are in the planning stages.
5. The area concerning release of confidential information to the news media
was reviewed, however the person or persons responsible for the releases were
not ascertained. The available information does support the premise that the
discord between members of the Board of Supervisors may have contributed to
the release of confidential information.
6. Partisan politics in County government, although not legally allowed,
cannot be proven to exist or discounted.
7. The major area of concern was the dysfunctional display of interaction by
some members at Board of Supervisor meetings, negative comments that made
their way into the news media and release of confidential information with the
intent to place another in a negative position. These actions were clearly not in
the best interest of the citizens of the County.
One of the reasons for the dysfunction of the Board was the failure of
some members to place their personal feelings aside when debating an issue and
the failure to recognize that others may not view the issue in the same way. The
failure to resolve these long- standing differences further added to the
dysfunctional perception of the Board.
When the available information is viewed in totality the blame for allowing
the dysfunctional operation of the Board of Supervisors lies squarely on the
shoulder of the former Chairman of the Board who was, at the time, the elected
leader. The leadership did not take the necessary steps to resolve the issues that
were the source of conflict between Board members.
The remaining Board of Supervisors also share in the blame for the
dysfunctional operation due to their failure to take a leadership role in the
conflict when the former Chairman did not take action to defuse or resolve the
dysfunctional operation.
As a result of the overall inaction by the Board of Supervisors there was a
continuing failure of cooperation, trust and communication between Supervisors;
thus the dysfunctional perception. This perception continued until there was a
change in the Chairman of the Board leadership in 2007.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
8
COMMENDATION
The present Board of Supervisors, despite differences of opinion that may arise
on County matters, appears to be functioning as a cohesive unit of County government
for the benefit of the people. Credit for this positive change appears to be the new
leadership and the manner in which he is able to listen and communicate with Board
members. The positive change is also a credit to the cooperation exhibited by all Board
members. The vast reduction in the amount of negative press by the news media
concerning the Board of Supervisors is also a credit to them. The Board of Supervisors
is also positively credited with the implementation of the new COUNTY VISION site on
the County website, which will open up the avenues of information and may reduce the
distrust of county government due to the lack of information.
The commendation to the Board of Supervisors is meant to be construed as a
reminder that they are the elected representatives of the people, charged to act in the
best interest of the citizens in their respective districts, and a dysfunctional Board of
Supervisors is not in the best interest of the citizens of San Bernardino County.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
9
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BACKGROUND
The County Administrative Officer ( CAO) is appointed by, and reports directly to,
the Board of Supervisors. The CAO oversees the operations of County departments and
assists in the coordination of activities of departments headed by elected officials.
FINDINGS
The CAO is responsible for the “ Service First” workshop conducted for all
employees of the County. “ Service First” is a countywide customer service
improvement program. The CAO believes this program has improved the workplace of
the County. The “ Service First” ideals have now been incorporated into the work
performance evaluation process.
A background check for all employees is needed to insure the safety and
integrity of the County and its employees. A background check policy was to be
presented to the Board of Supervisors by January 2007.
Every department is required to submit a Business Plan to the CAO. The
department must adhere to those plans once they are submitted to the Board of
Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 04 CONTINUE THE “ SERVICE FIRST” WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS FOR ALL
NEW EMPLOYEES.
07- 05 TO INSURE THE SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF THE COUNTY, EVERY
EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVES A PAYMENT FROM THE COUNTY BE
REQUIRED TO PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK, INCLUDING PUBLIC OFFICE
APPOINTEES AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STAFF.
07- 06 THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE
BUSINESS PLANS OF ALL DEPARTMENTS.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
10
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury investigated the Human Resources Department since it learned
that the County Administrative Officer stated at a “ Service First” mandatory meeting
that County employees will receive a timely and yearly Work Performance Evaluation
( WPE). The County Administrative Officer has set a goal of at least a 90% completion
rate and in past Grand Jury documentation it was indicated that a “ Standard
Background Check” would be implemented by January 2007.
FINDINGS
During a “ Service First” presentation it was stated that there were over 3,700
WPE’s which were clearly overdue. The current status now indicates that number at
only 300– 400. In fact, some employees are on extended sick leave or may be off work
for an extended period of time and, therefore, the department cannot complete the
WPE.
The goal of Human Resources, according to its Director, is to implement a
“ Standard Background Check” by January 2007. Human Resources was waiting for the
reorganization of the Board of Supervisors before presenting it for approval. Human
Resources will now proceed with the movement of the “ Standard Background Check”
policy to the County Administrative Officer, who supports it, and then to the five Board
of Supervisor members for final approval.
The Director of Human Resources stated that his intention was to be open to
suggestions and new ways of doing things. The Director stated that the following new
ordinances and policies ( personnel rules) have been implemented:
a. Dress and Grooming Program
b. Drug Testing, Alcohol Testing
c. Revisions of the following:
i. Employee Relations Ordinance ( bargaining units)
ii. Personnel Rules county- wide
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
11
iii. Policy and Procedures Manual
iv. “ Resource Newsletter” to all County employees
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 07 THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROGRAM THAT GIVES EACH COUNTY EMPLOYEE A YEARLY AND TIMELY
WORK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ( WPE).
07- 08 THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CONTINUE TO MAKE A
CONCERTED EFFORT TO IMPLEMENT A “ STANDARD BACKGROUND
CHECK” AND MOVE THE POLICY TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER AND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN A TIMELY MANNER.
07- 09 THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CONTINUE TO REVISE AND
IMPLEMENT THE ( 1) STANDARDIZED DRESS AND GROOMING PROGRAM;
( 2) DRUG TESTING AND ALCOHOL TESTING; AND ( 3) THE REVISIONS OF
THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS INDICATED ABOVE.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
12
INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury’s review was to identify areas that the newly appointed Chief
Information Officer may need to modify to improve overall operations of the
Information Services Department ( ISD).
ISD provides County service in five major areas: ( 1) Network Services, ( 2)
Application Development and Support, ( 3) Information Technology Customer Service,
( 4) Technology Operations, and ( 5) Core and Security.
In the past five years there have been two Grand Jury reviews of the
Information Services Department. Recommendations concerned replacement and
disposing, donation of old computers, and determining the cost benefit of having ISD
service all County computers. The 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury commended the ISD for
creation and implementation of the Grand Jury webpage.
FINDINGS
The Analog 800MHz radio communication support system and equipment in
current use by most County law enforcement agencies, and various other County
departments is over 15 years old. ISD is currently in the process of converting the
internal operating system presently in use in the support system, handheld devices and
car radios to a lower frequency within the 800 MHz Analog bandwidth system, due to
extreme high volume usage in the 800 MHz bandwidth.
In the future, it is going to become increasingly difficult to obtain replacement
parts for the present analog system. ISD is reviewing the feasibility and cost factors
associated with converting to a countywide digital communications system. Estimated
cost to convert just the communications support infrastructure is $ 250 million and does
not include the actual cost of digital radio units.
The County currently has 4,970 County owned one- way pagers in use. The
County also has 441 " Blackberry" and 69 " Goodlink" communication devices in use. The
Blackberry and Goodlink devices provide a two- way improved communication link for
County personnel.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
13
ISD is currently working on improving the functionality of the new Geographic
Information System ( GIS). This system will provide improved aerial views of County
properties when required by County departments.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 10 DETERMINE FEASIBILITY AND COST FACTORS TO IMPLEMENT A
COUNTYWIDE DIGITAL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM.
07- 11 IMPLEMENT A DIALOG WITH CONCERNED DEPARTMENTS USING THE
COUNTY ANALOG COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM TO DISCUSS ANALOG
ISSUES, PREPARE A PLANNED COURSE OF ACTION AND DETERMINE
AVAILABLE FUNDING RESOURCES TO CONVERT TO A COUNTYWIDE
DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AT A FUTURE DATE.
07- 12 REVIEW THE CURRENT ONE- WAY PAGER, BLACKBERRY/ GOODLINK
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS TO DETERMINE NEED, USAGE AND COST
EFFECTIVENESS.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
14
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL
BACKGROUND
The present Grand Jury looked at Animal Care and Control, regarding the 2004-
05 Grand Jury concerns on safety and security at the Devore Animal Shelter. The
length of time an animal is held was also investigated. Animal Care and Control takes
in over 12,000 animals a year. The shelter started in 1985 with 40 kennel runs, and
currently has over 90 kennel runs.
FINDINGS
Animal Care and Control has installed high fences and security cameras at the
Devore Animal Shelter. They presently have a full- time security guard. There have
been no break- ins since security measures were implemented. The shelter has been
painted, is clean and well organized. Animals are scanned for identification chips and
photographed immediately upon arrival. Photos and other information are placed on
the lost pet website: www. sbcounty. gov/ acc.
Animals are held for a minimum of five days ( State law requires four days).
When space is available, animals that are “ adoptable” are kept for a longer period or
placed with a certified rescue group. A larger facility would allow animals to be held for
a longer period for adoption.
People/ families looking to adopt a pet view animals in their cages. There is
insufficient space for interaction between animals and people/ families.
A veterinarian comes to the shelter three times a week to check and treat
animals on site. Multiple shelters in the Central Valley of San Bernardino County
duplicated animal care, adoption procedures and veterinarian care. The County assists
with spay/ neuter costs through a voucher program.
COMMENDATION
The Animal Shelter is located in a rural area; the security measures taken with
higher fences, security cameras and a full- time security guard make the shelter a safer
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
15
place for staff and animals. The department and County are to be commended for
implementing safety and security recommendations of the 2004- 05 Grand Jury.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 13 COMBINE THE EXISTING MULTIPLE ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL
FACILITIES IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY INTO A LARGER REGIONAL
FACILITY BY USING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS ( JPA) OF
NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES INCLUDING THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO.
07- 14 EMPLOY A FULL- TIME VETERINARIAN TO PROVIDE CARE, SPAY AND
NEUTERING AT A REGIONALIZED CONTROL CENTER.
07- 15 PROVIDE MORE SPACE IN AN ADOPTION CENTER WHERE
PEOPLE/ FAMILIES CAN INTERACT WITH PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PETS.
VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
Among the services provided by the San Bernardino County Department of Public
Health is the Vector Control Program of the Environmental Health Services Division.
( Vector has been defined as a carrier). Vector Control denotes control of vectors and
vector- borne diseases by any insect or animal that could cause health hazards to
humans or other animals. The Vector Control Program is both proactive and reactive.
There are two components of the program important to the control of vectors
and vector- borne diseases throughout the County.
1. The program has a comprehensive surveillance plan that routinely performs
surveys of mosquito, rodent and tick populations. It further evaluates the
prevalence of diseases such as West Nile, encephalitis, plague, Hantavirus,
Lyme, and others.
2. The program also provides prompt response to County residents’ requests.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
16
Visits were made to Vector Control facilities to get an overview of the
department. The Vector Control Program has an administrative office in the County
Government Center and a field office on Fifth Street in San Bernardino. The field office
is what drew our attention.
FINDINGS
The field office facility was designed to accommodate a staff of eight and
currently serves a staff of 21. It is extremely crowded. A Capital Improvement Plan
( CIP) for a new facility has been prepared and is going through the process. A new site
near freeway access would reduce unnecessary travel time.
The department is adequately staffed with trained professionals supplemented
with seasonal staff when needed. The seasonal staff mostly comes from colleges and
universities. There is no plan to add more staff at this time.
The 5,000 square foot building includes offices, laboratory, equipment storage,
locker room with a changing area shared by men and women, conference room, indoor
parking/ garage and supply storage.
An additional 5,000 square foot of outdoor space is taken up by four Sea Train
shipping containers; two are modified to accommodate offices and two for storage of
chemicals and fuel. These containers are not compliant with the American Disabilities
Act. On site is a chicken flock and hatchery tubs for mosquito fish.
There is no space at this site for expansion of any kind. The construction of a
new facility will allow for future expansion of the program and added staff to
accommodate the expected population growth and to better respond to the concerns
regarding vectors and vector- borne diseases from County residents.
Testing is done in the field and in an onsite lab manned by the Vector Ecologist.
Testing is also contracted out to University of California, Davis, and University of
California, Riverside, facilities. The San Bernardino Vector Control lab is crowded.
Sometimes lunches and lab specimens end up in the same refrigerator. There is an exit
door in the lab going directly outside; this could compromise the integrity of the lab.
The Vector Control Program includes County lands and West End cities served by
Special Districts. Communication is good between public and private agencies, which
results in no duplication of Vector Control services. State grants are available; some
desert cities did apply for grants up to $ 20,000 each while others have not applied for
grants.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
17
Vehicles and equipment are parked outside. Though there is an effort to put
sensitive equipment indoors at night, there is not always room. Vandalism in the past
has caused some loss of fuel and equipment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 16 IMPLEMENT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ( CIP) IMMEDIATELY TO
ACQUIRE A NEW CENTRALIZED SITE WITH FREEWAY ACCESS TO CUT
DOWN ON TRAVEL TIME FROM THE FACILITY TO THE JOB SITE( S).
07- 17 THE FACILITY INCLUDE SEPARATE DRESSING ROOMS AND SHOWERS
FOR MEN AND WOMEN STAFF.
07- 18 PROVIDE MORE SPACE FOR PERSONNEL, SPECIMENS, STORAGE AND
SENSITIVE EQUIPMENT, IN THE LAB.
07- 19 IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH, THE COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE DESERT CITIES TO
BECOME MORE ACTIVE IN VECTOR CONTROL ACTIVITIES TO
SAFEGUARD THE CITIZENS BY APPLYING FOR AVAILABLE STATE
GRANTS.
07- 20 SECURE INDOOR PARKING OF VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPRAYERS,
AND OTHER EQUIPMENT.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
18
RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury decided to conduct a review of this newly created department,
which was formerly a division within the Human Services Department. It was the Grand
Jury’s understanding that the County Administrative Officer ( CAO) transferred the Risk
Management Division to his direct supervision and upgraded it to departmental status.
An interview with the department Director took place and the Grand Jury had an
opportunity to ask questions and gain more understanding of its function.
FINDINGS
Risk Management was originally under the Human Resource’s Department. It is
now a complete and separate department in the County under the CAO. This change
afforded the Department more visibility in the County organization and allowed its
director full access to the CAO in regard to its function as managing insurance agent for
the County, managing claims for Worker’s Compensation and dealing with medical
malpractice claims for Arrowhead Regional Medical Center ( ARMC) and third part tort
claims against the County.
The importance of the Risk Management Department’s upgrade and placement
under the direct supervision of the CAO is recognized. The County’s liability and self-insured
status, workman’s compensation claims and medical malpractice claims for
ARMC are serious and grave issues for governmental entities.
The department places strong emphasis on ergonomics in the workplaces of
County employees.
The Director has expanded the Risk Management website on the County
Intranet. On this new site, there is a warning to County employees which states
“ employees are under the watchful eye of a camera.”
“ Background checks” of employees needs to be resolved. The Director stated
that the CAO will move forward to set forth a clear policy that every County employee
will have the standard background check. This new policy is to move forward to the
Board of Supervisors ( BOS) forthwith.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
19
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 21 RISK MANAGEMENT REMAIN A SEPARATE DEPARTMENT REPORTING
DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
07- 22 THE NEW RISK MANAGEMENT “ USER- FRIENDLY” WEBSITE FOR USE BY
COUNTY EMPLOYEES BE MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED.
07- 23 EVERY COUNTY EMPLOYEE BE REQUIRED TO PASS A STANDARD
BACKGROUND CHECK.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
20
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
BACKGROUND
During a Grand Jury investigation of a citizen complaint concerning a city’s use of
environmental mitigation funds ( EMF), several areas of concern came to our attention.
These concerns related to Solid Waste Management Memorandums of Understanding
( MOU’s) with various cities in which San Bernardino County landfills are located.
FINDINGS
The Solid Waste Management Division has entered into many MOU’s with various
cities concerning landfills that are located within that city’s boundaries or sphere of
influence. Each city is paid the following amounts:
LANDFILL CITY RATE PER TON
Mid Valley Fontana $ 2.69
Rialto $ 2.69
San Timoteo Redlands $ 1.00
Colton Colton $ 1.00
Victorville Victorville $ .50
Barstow Barstow $ .50
29 Palms 29 Palms $ .50
Landers Yucca Valley no fee
Mid Valley pays tonnage rates more than five times greater than other landfills.
These MOU’s provide for:
1. Distribution of money from the Environmental Mitigation Fund.
2. Eligibility for funding.
3. Criteria for funding.
4. Funding formula.
5. Payment method.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
21
6. The Nexus Test ( A project satisfies the “ Nexus Test” if the project’s
primary purpose and effect is to alleviate or to reduce the
magnitude or the significance of an adverse condition affecting the
city. This adverse condition must result from the presence of the
current and/ or expanded landfill).
All monies from the EMF paid to a city must be used by that city relative to the
criteria established under the “ Nexus Test”.
All cities warrant that they will use fees only on projects that meet the “ Nexus
Test”.
The cities of Rialto and Fontana are presently each paid approximately $ 2 million
per year. Rialto was prepaid $ 14 million in 1998 in order to build a new police station.
That police station has never been built. Rialto has been prepaid for tonnage until
approximately 2012.
The MOU’s with all cities except Fontana and Rialto require that:
1. The city keeps records necessary to establish the use of EMF
monies for five years after use.
2. All use of EMF monies is subject to audit by the County, as it
deems necessary.
If a city fails to satisfy the “ Nexus Test”, the funds are to be returned to the
County for placement in the EMF until a project to use the funds meets the “ Nexus
Test”.
Solid Waste Management has never conducted or requested an audit, has no
procedure for requesting an audit, and has no knowledge of whether any city is
misusing EMF monies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 24 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SET UP A PROCEDURE TO AUDIT THE USE
OF EMF FUNDS.
07- 25 IF CITIES ARE NOT USING EMF FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE MOU, SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUEST THAT THOSE FUNDS BE RETURNED TO
THE COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE MOU.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
22
07- 26 IF FONTANA AND RIALTO CANNOT MEET THE “ NEXUS TEST”, THEN
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT RENEGOTIATE THE TONNAGE RATES PAID
TO FONTANA AND RIALTO IN LIEU OF REQUIRING THOSE CITIES TO
MEET THE “ NEXUS TEST”.
07- 27 THE COUNTY COUNSEL’S OFFICE INCLUDE IN ALL ENVIRONMENTAL
MITIGATION FUNDS MOU’S THE REQUIREMENT THAT EACH CITY KEEP
RECORDS FOR FIVE YEARS AND THAT THE COUNTY CAN AUDIT THE
EMF MONIES AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY.
Audit/ fisca l
COMMITTEE Back – Dennis Zimmerman, JoAnn Miller, Gary Moran
Front – Thomas Ma, Ellen Miller- Chair, Jeanne Choisnet
Not pictured – Marianne Della Marna
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
23
AUDIT/ FISCAL COMMITTEE
The Audit/ Fiscal Committee reviewed the operations and functions of the
following County departments:
Assessor
Auditor/ Controller- Recorder
Public Guardian
Treasurer/ Tax Collector
The full committee was used for reviews and investigations of each of these
departments. Also investigated was the Retirement System. Included in this report are
the findings and recommendations of the Audit/ Fiscal Committee
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
24
COUNTY ASSESSOR
BACKGROUND
On January 7, 2007, a new County Assessor was sworn into office.
The County Assessor is an elected official and constitutional officer charged by
law with the responsibility of independent oversight and preparation of the annual local
property assessments, from which tax funds are derived. Currently, there are 235
employees in the Assessor’s Office, of which 142 are located at the San Bernardino
Office at 172 West Third Street. The remaining 93 are distributed throughout the nine
( 9) countywide district offices, where appraisers and their support staff are located.
The mission statement of the Office of Assessor is to perform the following state
mandated functions:
1. Locate, describe and identify ownership of all property within the county.
2. Establish a taxable value for all property subject to taxation.
3. List all taxable value on the assessment roll.
4. Apply all legal exemptions.
On March 27, 2007, an interview with the Assessor and five staff members was
conducted. A guided tour of the Assessor’s main office was conducted after the
interview.
FINDINGS
The newly elected Assessor has made personnel changes in his staff structure
and has started a review of the Assessor’s operations in preparation to formulate a
Business Plan. The Assessor is also in the process of requesting funds from the Board
of Supervisors to remodel the three floors occupied by Assessor personnel.
The Assessor is in the process of converting certain hard copy paper files to a
digital format. The intent is to save space, increase safety and secure all records.
The Assessor has reclassified some staff positions to unclassified status, which
will afford him the means to accomplish future goals for the office. The reclassification
was made with the concurrence of the affected staff personnel.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
25
The lack of a formal structured training program for such positions as Appraiser
has been identified as a need for the Assessor’s future plans. At present, a new
Appraiser is assigned to one of nine district offices and trained by staff Appraisers from
that office. Training information imparted to trainees may not be consistent in offices
throughout the County.
A tour of the facility on the third, fourth and fifth floors revealed a need to
remodel, repair, upgrade and/ or replace various items in each of the three floors. The
current Assessor’s building was constructed in about 1958 and was originally the
Treasurer’s Office. The original vault used to maintain County funds is still in place and
used for file storage.
Ceiling lighting in some offices consists of old florescent fixtures set into
suspended ceiling tiles. Due to glare emitted by these lights on computer monitors,
some of the fixtures have been turned off to facilitate the use of computers.
There are certain areas where suspended ceiling tiles are missing, broken or
stained. Work cubicles are very small, close together and most of the work area
furniture is old “ Steel Case” type. The furniture in some areas was obtained from
County storage where old, replaced County office equipment is discarded.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 28 THE ASSESSOR DEVELOP A FORMAL STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAM
TO BE CONSISTENT IN ALL DISTRICT OFFICES.
07- 29 BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE ASSESSOR’S FACILITY, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAREFULLY
REVIEW THE ASSESSOR’S OVERALL BUSINESS PLAN FOR 2007/ 2008 AND
APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO RENOVATE THE ASSESSOR’S
OFFICES, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION FUTURE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS. POSITIVE APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED
RENOVATION FUNDS WOULD BE A BENEFIT NOT ONLY TO THE
ASSESSOR’S EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO TO THE COUNTY WITH THE
IMPROVED PROCESSING OF VITAL PROPERTY INFORMATION. THIS
APPROVAL SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED AND CONTINGENT UPON THE
AVAILABLE FUNDS AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
complaints
COMMITTEE Back – Roy Nierman, Ron Brooks- Chair, Burrel Woodring
Front – Thomas Ma, Dennis Zimmerman, Elias Valdez
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
26
COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
The function of the Complaints Committee is to review all complaints
received by the Grand Jury on an official complaint form. The forms are available by
request or through the internet. Complaints may be referred by the District Attorney’s
Office. The committee determines if the complaints are valid. If a complaint is valid and
meets criteria, it is referred to the proper committee.
The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury received 19 complaints during its term. Two of these
complaints were referred to the Public and Support Services Committee, one complaint
was referred to the Law and Justice Committee, and one complaint was referred to the
Administrative Committee. Fifteen complaints resulted in no action taken by the
Complaints Committee. Each complainant was informed of the action taken on their
complaint.
economic development
COMMITTEE Back – Thomas Ma, William Howard- Chair, Victor Edinburgh
Front – Ellen Miller, Kenneth Taylor, Carol Sharp
Not pictured – Clyde Metzler
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
27
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
The Economic Development Committee was challenged to review and/ or
investigate the following County departments as to their respective functions and
procedures in the operations of their departments:
Economic Development
• Big Box Stores
• City of Needles
• County’s Five- Year Plan
Redevelopment
• Cedar Glen Project
• San Sevaine Project
Workforce Development
Upon conclusion of the interviews and/ or investigations, there were no final
reports from the subcommittees of Economic Development or Workforce Development.
The efforts from the Redevelopment Subcommittee led to the following final
report.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
28
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BACKGROUND
The County Redevelopment Agency serves to improve economic opportunities
and affordable living conditions within established redevelopment project areas in the
unincorporated county, through the effective and efficient utilization of California
redevelopment law, appropriate use of tax increment revenues and cooperative
programs with other County agencies and communities.
In 1995, the former Kaiser Steel Mill site and other blighted industrial properties
located in the unincorporated area west of Fontana were incorporated into the San
Sevaine Redevelopment Project Area. The major objectives of the project are to
encourage private sector investment in the development and redevelopment of the
area, by removing impediments to growth caused by ever- present toxic and hazardous
waste, eliminating and/ or preventing the spread of blight and deterioration, and
correcting infrastructure deficiencies.
FINDINGS
The County’s redevelopment project areas are very unique requiring staff to
possess specialized knowledge and ability to perform the job. The existing positions
require the knowledge of writing of comprehensive reports, act as a liaison, facilitate
and conduct financial analyses, make public presentations and monitor legislation.
The redevelopment of the San Sevaine Project is well planned and being
implemented successfully. Past toxic and hazardous waste problems may be a
detriment to future redevelopment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 30 MONITOR THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SAN SEVAINE PROJECT
AREAS, WHICH HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO POSSESS TOXIC AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE.
human services
COMMITTEE Back – Ron Brooks, William Howard, Victor Edinburgh
Front – Jeanne Choisnet, Roderic Moers- Chair, Carol Sharp
Not pictured – Marianne Della Marna
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
29
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
The Human Services Committee investigated the following departments and
agencies:
Aging and Adult Services
• Ombudsman Program
Department of Children’s Services
• Foster Care
• Independent Living Program
Transitional Assistance
• Food Stamp Improvement
• Food Stamp Fraud
The committee completed reports on the Ombudsman Program and Foster Care.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
30
DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT
SERVICES
OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
Title VII Older Americans Act of 1965 is funded through the State of California
and provides oversight assistance to residents in long- term nursing facilities and
residential care homes in San Bernardino County. This oversight assistance is provided
by trained Ombudsman volunteers who donate their time and service.
Knowledge of the program and Ombudsman duties were known to two Grand
Jurors. Their experience was helpful in assessing the program and promoted the
investigation.
FINDINGS
There are currently 26 certified Ombudsmen. This figure fluctuates according to
the turnover rate. The volunteers serve 58 skilled nursing facilities and 256 residential
care homes. The confidentiality and privacy of the residents is protected by the
Ombudsman Program. An average of 160 monthly complaints are handled by the
program. The turnover rate of Ombudsmen is a concern. Due to the increased
longevity of the older population, the assistance provided is becoming less adequate.
Continued news coverage and other coverage would encourage a flow of volunteers.
The Ombudsman volunteers are working without appropriate safety
communication. A GPS system provided for the volunteers would give needed safety in
the field.
Communication between County and State officials is insufficient due to
unanswered telephone calls, e- mails and letters.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 31 INCREASE MEDIA EXPOSURE TO REDUCE TURNOVER RATE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN VOLUNTEER.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
31
07- 32 INSTALL GPS SYSTEMS IN ALL OMBUDSMAN CELL PHONES.
07- 33 INCREASE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN STATE AND COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO ASSURE A CONTINUED AND SUCCESSFUL OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
32
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
FOSTER CARE
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury looked into Children Services to see if safety and security were a
priority for children and County workers. The Grand Jury found that children in Foster
Care were visited on a regular schedule and reported as being visited in a timely
manner.
FINDINGS
Social workers may use their own phone and/ or pager, or County issued phone
and pager for communication when making visitations and doing fieldwork. Social
workers are often in areas where communication is limited. GPS systems are not used
in conjunction with phone use in the field and should be purchased for safety and
communication with supervisors and co- workers and law enforcement.
It was reported that the use of “ Safe Measures” by department supervisors has
improved the reporting percentage of foster care children being seen in a timely
manner. “ Safe Measures” provides real time information regarding current status of the
department, region, unit and individual caseworker. Utilizing the “ Safe Measures”
program makes it apparent that the reporting problems were in data entry rather than
social workers not making contact with foster child. The statistical data of children
being seen in a timely manner has improved from 65% to 93%. The current cost for
“ Safe Measures” program is $ 64,000 a year. There is no cost in adding the Social
Workers to the “ Safe Measures” program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 34 PURCHASE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS ( GPS) FOR SOCIAL
WORKERS’ AREA SO THAT THEIR LOCATION CAN BE TRACKED WHEN
NEEDED OR ASSISTED BY OTHER STAFF OR LAW ENFORCEMENT IF IN A
DANGEROUS SITUATION
07- 35 ADD SOCIAL WORKERS TO “ SAFE MEASURES” PROGRAM.
law and justice
COMMITTEE Back – Dennis Zimmerman, Kenneth Taylor
Center – Roy Nierman, Gary Moran, Burrel Woodring- Chair
Front – JoAnn Miller, Elias Valdez, Lois Long
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
33
LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE
The Law and Justice Committee had the responsibility for investigating the
following County departments:
Probation
Public Defender
Sheriff- Coroner
The authority for the investigation of these departments is found in the California
Penal Code and Government Code.
Final reports and recommendations were made on the following offices and
facilities:
Barstow Sheriff Station and Detention Facility
Central Court Holding Facility
Coroner
ICE Unit at West Valley Detention Center
Indigent Defense Contracts
Indigent Defense Fee Collection
Judicial Benefits
Probation Department
Public Defender Department
Scientific Investigations Unit
Sheriff’s Training Center/ Academy
The Sheriff’s Inmate Welfare Trust Fund was investigated and was found to be
operating properly and legally under the rules set forth by the Penal Code.
The Board of Supervisors hired a new Public Defender during this Grand Jury’s
term of office. Investigations showed that she is reorganizing this department and
introducing some significant cost- saving programs.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
34
INDIGENT DEFENSE
CONTRACTS
BACKGROUND
The San Bernardino Superior Court is no longer a County department. This Grand
Jury does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations to the Court or the Judges,
who are State employees. The Superior Court, however, still sets the requirements for
contract attorneys and awards the contracts for all adult indigent defense attorneys.
These contracts are paid with County funds.
Juvenile contracts are paid with funds from the State. The Superior Court, which
is a state agency, continues to award the juvenile indigent attorney contracts.
FINDINGS
A state agency is awarding county contracts and spending County funds for the
representation of indigent defendants by indigent contract defense attorneys. A
possible conflict exists when defense attorneys appear before judges who award the
indigent fee contracts. Contract attorneys who appear before those judges can be
intimidated.
The San Bernardino Superior Court contract only requires that the contracting
attorney have the following legal qualifications:
1. Licensed to practice law in the State of California.
2. The attorney has malpractice insurance.
The contracting attorney determines which sub- contract attorney would actually
represent the defendant in each case. There is no requirement for specific experience
levels, capabilities or qualifications of a sub- contract attorney to handle different types
of crimes or cases ( excluding life without possibility of parole or death penalty cases).
At present, there were only four bidders on the four County contracts which are
awarded to contract attorneys every three years. Those bids are as follows:
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
35
CONTRACT AREA MISD. COST FELONY COST
North Desert ( Victorville/ Barstow) $ 375 $ 1045
East Valley ( Central/ Fontana) $ 375 $ 975
West Valley ( Chino/ Rancho) $ 400 $ 975
East Desert ( Joshua Tree) $ 375 $ 1150
In the Central Division ( San Bernardino), there were 1,295 felony appointments
to the contract attorneys during the year 2006. There are approximately 15 sub-contract
attorneys who handle the cases in the Central Division.
The charge per defendant is so low Orange County and Los Angeles County
attorneys do not bid on the San Bernardino indigent defense attorney contracts.
Since the appointment of a new Public Defender in 2006, there has been a nine
percent drop in the number of felony appointments and a 15 percent drop in the
number of misdemeanor appointments to contract attorneys. This has reduced the
income of contract attorneys and has saved the County over $ 700,000.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 36 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER TO NEGOTIATE AND AWARD THE CONTRACTS WITH INDIGENT
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS.
07- 37 THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SET STANDARDS TO INSURE
THAT EACH CONTRACTING ATTORNEY AND SUB- CONTRACTING
ATTORNEY IS QUALIFIED TO HANDLE THE TYPE OF CASE HE/ SHE IS
APPOINTED TO DEFEND.
07- 38 THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DESIGNATE A COUNTY
DEPARTMENT, POSSIBLY TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR, TO HANDLE ALL
ACCOUNTINGS AND PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTING ATTORNEYS.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
36
INDIGENT DEFENSE
FEE COLLECTION
BACKGROUND
The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury recommended ( recommendation # 06- 41) that the
Treasurer/ Tax Collector proceed with the indigent defense fees collection program.
This program was to allow the County to recover attorney fees from those defendants
who are not totally indigent. The program was discontinued by the then Presiding
Judge. The Treasurer/ Tax Collector, in their response (# 06- 41), indicated that “ The
County lost $ 2 million of possible reimbursement for public defender fees due to Courts
not ordering fees as recommended”.
FINDINGS
In 2006 the Public Defender and contract attorneys were appointed on the
following criminal cases:
Agency Misdemeanor Felony
Public Defender 31,338 16,254
Contract Attorneys 2,709 3,808
A pilot program for the collection of indigent defense fees is being developed by
the Treasurer/ Tax Collector and the Court in the Rancho Courthouse. It is anticipated
that this pilot program will be instituted throughout the County after a scheduled
meeting with the presiding judge and approval from the judges’ executive committee.
The Treasurer/ Tax Collector will then be designated as the “ Financial Officer” per
P. C. 987.81 to collect indigent defense attorney fees.
The pilot program will provide for the court at the arraignment procedure to
present to defendant, among other legal notices, a portion advising the process for
reimbursement of attorney fees. ( This form is still in the development process). The
Treasurer/ Tax Collector will then process the collection of appropriate reimbursement
fees from those defendants who have been determined to be able to pay for any and/ or
all attorney fees.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
37
The Court will be ordering defendants to pay “ the maximum amount” of attorney
fees subject to modification by the “ Financial Officer” based on the defendant’s ability
to pay. The “ maximum amount” presently set by the Court is $ 500 for misdemeanors
and $ 800 for felonies.
Present indigent defense contracts between the Court and contract attorneys
provide for the following pay schedule to the contract attorney:
Misdemeanors $ 375.00 to $ 400.00
Felonies $ 975.00 to $ 1150.00
The indigent defense reimbursement program may include both misdemeanor
cases and cases in which the defendant is not convicted of a crime or may be phased,
one at a time, into the program.
There is no procedure presently in effect for defendants appearing by video
arraignment to be ordered to “ Central Collections”. The Public Defender has indicated
there may be 10,000 arraignments by video in 2008.
The indigent defense reimbursement program will not work without the total
cooperation of all judges who handle criminal cases. The Treasurer/ Tax Collector has
indicated judges who are overloaded with cases often forget to order attorney fees.
The County lost $ 2 million in 2006 because of the Court’s failure to order attorney fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 39 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR IMPLEMENT THE INDIGENT DEFENSE
FEE COLLECTION PROGRAM COUNTYWIDE.
07- 40 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE COURT TO REQUIRE
THE COURT BAILIFF TO HAND EACH DEFENDANT A FINANCIAL
QUESTIONNAIRE AND A LETTER FROM “ CENTRAL COLLECTIONS”
NOTIFYING THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS AND ORDERING THEM TO APPEAR
IN 20 DAYS TO CENTRAL COLLECTIONS.
07- 41 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE COURT TO
INCREASE THE “ MAXIMUM ATTORNEY FEES” TO:
MISDEMEANORS $ 500.00
FELONIES $ 1200.00
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
38
07- 42 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE COURT TO
ESTABLISH ATTORNEY FEE REIMBURSEMENT IN MISDEMEANOR CASES
AND IN CASES IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ACQUITTED.
07- 43 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT TO INSURE VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT
DEFENDANTS BE INCLUDED IN THE INDIGENT DEFENSE COLLECTION
PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF THE VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT.
07- 44 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE COURT TO MODIFY
THE ARRAIGNMENT DOCKET SHEET TO REMIND JUDGES TO INCLUDE
THE ORDERING OF ATTORNEY FEES IN INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND
FELONY CASES.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
39
JUDICIAL BENEFITS
BACKGROUND
In 1992 Municipal and Justice Courts in the County were merged. In recognition
of the merger, the Board of Supervisors equalized the benefits paid to those County
Judges.
In 1997, a second consolidation took place when the State of California enacted
the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 ( SB 223) which abolished the Municipal Courts and
declared the Municipal Court Judges were, henceforth, Superior Court Judges. This act
also provided that all Judges are employees of the State of California and no
longer County employees.
In 2000, The San Bernardino Board of Supervisors enacted Resolution
2000- 190 that allocated $ 1.3 million to the Court for costs associated with
locally authorized judicial benefits for “ eligible” judges, and there were 63
“ eligible” judges at that time.
The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury questioned why the Board of Supervisors continued
to authorize the payment of $ 19,371.56 per year to every San Bernardino County Judge
since they were now employees of the State of California.
FINDINGS
Superior Court Judges are State employees and their salary is set by the State
legislature and paid by the State of California ( AB 223, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997).
Superior Court Judges are appointed by the Governor of California or elected by
the residents of the County. The Governor can appoint persons to the San Bernardino
Superior Court who are not residents of the County. County “ judicial benefits” are not a
major factor in the acceptance of an appointment to a judgeship. Many counties offer
no judicial benefits.
The County Counsel in two separate legal opinions, one on September 22, 2000,
and one on April 21, 2003, questioned whether judges can legally participate in County
sponsored benefit programs.
In 2000, 63 “ eligible” judges were collecting County benefits. Today, 83
“ eligible” judges receive County benefits of $ 19,700 per year.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
40
There are presently five judicial vacancies on the San Bernardino County judicial
bench and the State of California has authorized 16 additional judicial positions for the
County of San Bernardino.
In 1997, the salary of a Superior Court Judge was $ 108,000. Today, the salary
of a Superior Court Judge is $ 171,000. This is a 63% increase.
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury reported on what other Southern California counties
paid judges as judicial benefits. Their findings were as follows:
• Alameda
o Paid $ 1,350 per judge annually for a cafeteria plan. A total cost
of $ 150,000 for 69 judges.
• Fresno
o Paid $ 1,121.42 per judge for health insurance and $ 92.56 for a
life insurance policy
• Riverside
o Paid a car allowance, deferred compensation and life insurance
policy.
• San Diego
o Paid no county benefits for 128 judges.
• Santa Barbara
o Paid no county benefits for 19 judges.
• Santa Clara
o Paid for a $ 25,000 life insurance policy for 79 judges.
• San Bernardino
o Paid county benefits of $ 19,371.56 per judge. A total of
$ 1,607,839 for 83 judges.
The current San Bernardino County benefit is $ 19,700 per judge. A total of
$ 1,635,100 for 83 judges. An expected total of $ 1,950,300 for 99 judges. ( San
Bernardino is authorized 16 additional judges).
The cost of living in San Bernardino County is less than many other Southern
California counties. For example, the median home prices are substantially less. In
March 2007, the median home prices in Southern California counties were as follows:
• Los Angeles $ 540,000
• Orange $ 629,000
• Riverside $ 420,000
• San Diego $ 490,000
• Ventura $ 566,750
• San Bernardino $ 369,000
• So. California $ 505,000
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
41
The median home prices in San Bernardino County are the lowest in Southern
California, yet San Bernardino County pays substantially more in judicial benefits than
other Southern California counties.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 45 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCONTINUE OR REDUCE THE JUDICIAL
BENEFITS PAID TO PRESENTLY APPOINTED OR ELECTED SUPERIOR
COURT JUDGES.
07- 46 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOT PAY ANY JUDICIAL BENEFITS TO
ANY NEW JUDGE APPOINTED OR NEWLY ELECTED AFTER JULY 1, 2007.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
42
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The San Bernardino County Probation Department handles 17,000 to 18,000
adult probationers with approximately 120 to 130 Deputy Probation Officers. The
Probation Officer average caseload is 140 probationers.
A Probation Department memorandum dated September 18, 2006, indicated the
San Bernardino County Probation Department currently prepares 6,000 pre- sentence
probation reports each year for the San Bernardino Superior Court, whereas, Orange
County Probation Department prepares approximately 800 pre- sentence probation
reports per year.
FINDINGS
The vast majority of these pre- sentence probation reports ( hereafter referred to
as “ probation reports”) concern cases in which the defendant, the defense attorney, the
District Attorney and the Court have accepted a negotiated plea agreement. These
negotiated plea agreements typically resolve most, if not all, issues concerning length of
jail sentence, restitution, fines and terms of probation, prior to the matter being
referred to the Probation Department for a pre- sentence report.
The probation reports are labor intensive. Each report requires 9- 12 hours to
complete ( 3 to 4 reports per deputy per week). Presently 25 Deputy Probation Officers
spend their entire time writing pre- sentence probation reports. If 3,000 less probation
reports were written per year, 14 Probation Officer IIs and one Supervising Probation
Officer could be reassigned to supervision of high risk probationers or to other areas
where gaps in service exist.
It normally takes four weeks to complete a probation report and a defendant
typically waits in county jail for an additional four weeks after accepting a negotiated
plea agreement before being transported by the Sheriff's Department back to Court for
sentencing.
P. C. 1203( 4) provides that the probation report may be waived by a stipulation
of the prosecuting and defense attorneys with the consent of the Court.
Riverside County Adult Probation Department writes approximately 2,000 pre-sentence
probation reports each year and only writes reports on the following:
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
43
1. Cases that go to trial ( 90% of all pre- sentence probation reports)
2. Cases in which there is a “ Lid” on sentencing, i. e. agreement of not more
than a set number of years.
3. Cases in which there is no agreement by the District Attorney’s Office and the
plea is offered by the Court.
There are no pre- sentence probation reports written on any negotiated pleas other than
those listed above.
If there is a negotiated plea in Riverside Court, the Court does a sentencing of
the defendant, whether or not a victim is available to testify.
P. C. 1192.6 requires the prosecuting attorney to relay to the Court the
circumstances of the offense, the medical expense involved, whether there are prior
felonies involved, and the damages to the victim. Riverside Court will sentence the
defendant immediately and will order restitution as determined by Financial Services.
Financial Services is a department working for the Court, but funded by Riverside
County. It has the responsibility to calculate and collect restitution. If defendants are
not in custody they are directed to go to Financial Services immediately. If the
defendant is in custody, Financial Services will contact them at the jail. Financial
Services personnel get the police report which has the address and name of the victim.
( Victim names are not given in sex crime cases). Financial Services then contacts the
victim to determine damages, injuries, medical expense and the amount of
reimbursement to be made to the victim. Financial Services then determines the
amount of the restitution and it becomes a part of the court order.
In many instances the Victim/ Witness personnel in the District Attorney’s Office
can contact the victim to determine the restitution required to be made to the victim.
The District Attorney’s Office can also run a Criminal Information Identification ( CII)
report to determine the defendant’s criminal background. This is normally done before
the preliminary hearing and is available to the Judge for sentencing if a negotiated plea
agreement is reached.
The San Bernardino District Attorney’s Victim/ Witness Program has just
requested grant money under P. C. 1382.5 of $ 966,813.00.
The San Bernardino Probation Department has suggested the elimination of pre-sentence
probation reports on negotiated pleas of:
1. Petty theft with a prior.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
44
2. Vehicle theft where the vehicle is returned with minor damage.
3. Low level burglary.
4. Victimless crimes.
5. Drug cases without a victim.
6. Other low level crimes.
By waiving probation reports on these negotiated pleas, 14 Deputy Probation
Officers could be assigned elsewhere to provide greater supervision to high risk
offenders that have committed a violent crime or who have a high potential for violating
probation.
The Public Defender’s office, the District Attorney’s office, the Probation
Department and the San Bernardino Superior Court have agreed to waive pre- sentence
probation reports for drug crimes without a victim. This went into effect March 1, 2007.
It is anticipated this will eliminate approximately 1,000 probation reports and will free
up approximately five Deputy Probation Officer IIs to perform other duties.
The District Attorney’s office has indicated that contacting the victims to
determine restitution on damages to victims is the responsibility of the Probation
Department. They also indicated that the Probation Department should investigate the
criminal background of defendants and not the District Attorney’s office. Their primary
objection was that this is the way they have done it in the past and they were not
“ comfortable in waiving Probation reports on any negotiated pleas other than non-violent
drug cases.” The Public Defender’s office and the Probation Department
encourage waiving probation reports on other low- level crimes as Orange County and
Riverside County have done. The San Bernardino Superior Court has indicated that if
the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney waive a probation report, they will
consent to the waiver.
If there was a waiver of probation reports for other low level crimes as listed
above, it would eliminate an additional 1,800 probation reports and free up an
additional nine Deputy Probation Officer IIs. It is anticipated 1,800 fewer probation
reports would have the following effects:
1. Reduce the review of 1,800 probation reports by the defense attorney, the
prosecuting attorney and the Judge.
2. Not tying up the following personnel in 1,800 additional court hearings:
a. Judge
b. Prosecuting attorney
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
45
c. Defense attorney
d. Bailiff
e. Court reporter
f. Court clerk
3. County jail inmates could be released on probation or sentenced to state
prison four weeks earlier. ( No need to return to court four weeks later for
sentencing.)
4. Fewer inmate movements from county jail to Court for in- custody defendants.
5. Reduce by 1,800 the number of Court calendared items which will allow the
Court to proceed with other hearings.
Freeing up nine ( 9) additional Deputy Probation Officer IIs and one ( 1)
Supervising Probation Officer, would save the County over $ 1,000,000 per year in
salaries used solely to write probation reports.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 47 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S
OFFICE WAIVE PRE- SENTENCE PROBATION REPORTS ON NEGOTIATED
PLEAS OF THE FOLLOWING CRIMES:
a. PETTY THEFT WITH A PRIOR.
b. VEHICLE THEFT WHERE THE VEHICLE IS RETURNED WITH
MINOR DAMAGE.
c. LOW LEVEL BURGLARY.
d. VICTIMLESS CRIMES.
e. DRUG CASES WITHOUT A VICTIM.
f. OTHER LOW LEVEL CRIMES.
07- 48 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S VICTIM/ WITNESS PERSONNEL CONTACT
VICTIMS TO DETERMINE REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES AND RESTITUTION
WHEN POSSIBLE.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
46
07- 49 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR ESTABLISH A FINANCIAL SERVICES
DIVISION TO WORK WITH THE COURT TO CALCULATE AND COLLECT
RESTITUTION.
07- 50 THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT REASSIGN DEPUTY PROBATION
OFFICERS FREED UP AS A RESULT OF FEWER PROBATION REPORTS, TO
PROVIDE GREATER SUPERVISION OF HIGH RISK OFFENDERS. ANY
MONEY SAVED BY NOT HIRING DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICERS COULD
BE USED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS OR INCREASE PERSONNEL IN THE VICTIM- WITNESS
PROGRAM.
07- 51 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER REQUEST THAT
DEFENDANTS IN NEGOTIATED PLEAS BE SENTENCED IMMEDIATELY IN
ORDER TO FREE UP JAIL SPACE AND COURT PERSONNEL.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
47
PUBLIC DEFENDER
BACKGROUND
The Constitution provides that all persons accused of a crime be defended.
Those defendants who do not have the financial means to hire an attorney will be
assigned one by the court. The County Public Defender's ( P. D.) office has the
responsibility of representing indigent clients. It provides defense services to both
adults and juveniles accused of felonies, misdemeanors, and violations of probation.
FINDINGS
The P. D. has started a comprehensive training program. The office is now
representing defendants from arraignment to sentencing. The P. D. has reduced the
number of cases the public defender has been relieved from representing a defendant
because of a conflict of interest. The P. D. has reduced the number of Marsden hearings
by 95%. A Marsden hearing is a hearing granted by the Court when a defendant
requests that the attorney appointed to represent him or her be removed and another
attorney ( normally a private attorney) be appointed to represent him or her. The P. D.
has recommended waiving pre- sentence probation reports on some negotiated plea
cases that have the potential to free up several probation officers to perform other
tasks.
The P. D.’ s Office currently has 111 Deputy Public Defender positions authorized.
Five of those positions are unfunded and three positions are vacant. The P. D. handled
over 52,723 cases in 2006, for an average of 512 cases per attorney ( 52,723 cases
divided by 103 attorneys = 512). The P. D. estimates they will handle over 65,000 cases
in 2008 for an average caseload of 585 cases per attorney ( 65,000 cases divided by 111
attorneys = 585).
The Department of Justice's National Advisory Commission adopted a caseload
standard of “ no more than 150 assigned felonies per attorney per year, or no
more than 400 assigned misdemeanors per attorney per year, or no more
than 242 assigned juvenile cases per attorney per year.”
The 2006 caseloads of area public defender’s offices are as follows:
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
48
County
Felony
Juvenile
Misd.
Total
Cases
# of
Atty’s
Avg
Caseload
Per Atty
Budget
Cost per
Defendant
San
Bernardino
16,254
5,131
31,338
52,723
103
512
$ 28,862,282
$ 547
Orange 77,500 213 360 $ 54,865,528 $ 708
Riverside
( 2004/ 2005)
14,344 3,100 17,959 35,403 131 270 $ 26,842,148 $ 758
The P. D. is now present for all video arraignments at Adelanto and West Valley
Detention Centers. It is estimated there will be 10,000 video arraignments per year in
2008.
As a result of the P. D. having fewer conflict cases and fewer Marsden hearings
granted, there has been a nine percent decrease in contract attorney felony cases and
a 15 percent decrease in misdemeanor cases. The contract attorneys received average
fees of $ 975 per defendant. The P. D. cost per defendant is $ 547. The reduction in
contract attorney cases has saved the County over $ 700,000.
Although the Public Defender’s office received increased staffing in 2006- 2007,
the increased number of countywide criminal filings, the decrease in declared conflicts
and decreased Marsden hearings has resulted in increasing the P. D. caseload rather
than lessening it.
The Public Defender’s Office has need for 18 additional Deputy Public Defender
positions ( an increase to 129 positions). The average caseload would be 504 cases per
attorney ( 65,000 anticipated cases divided by 129 attorneys = 504) which is still higher
than the attorney caseload of Riverside County or Orange County.
In 2006, the average caseload per Public Defender investigator was:
COUNTY NUMBER OF
INVESTIGATORS
TOTAL CASES CASES PER
INVESTIGATOR
Orange 79 77,500 981
Riverside 39 35,403 908
San Bernardino 22 52,723 2,396
The Public Defender’s office does not have a comprehensive case management
system. This system would enable attorneys to access files from the office or the
courtroom. It would save clerical staff time, incorporate updated technology and
enable multi- department coordination to enhance motion writing, case organization,
and staff efficiency.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
49
Because of the increase in caseload and the number of attorney positions, there
is a need for eight office assistants, six supervising office assistants, six investigators,
and one supervising investigator.
Extremely high attorney caseloads, investigator caseloads, and staff caseloads
cause high employee, investigator and attorney turnover which ultimately leads to
increased recruitment and training costs.
Although the Public Defender's office will increase its office space in San
Bernardino with completion of the 303 building, there is still a shortage of office space
in Victorville and Fontana. The Fontana office has 4,000 sq. ft. of space for 23 staff
members. Victorville has 5,300 sq. ft. of space for 26 staff members.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 52 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE FUNDING FOR 18 ADDITIONAL
DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND TWO SUPERVISING DEPUTY PUBLIC
DEFENDERS.
07- 53 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE FUNDING FOR SIX
INVESTIGATORS AND ONE SUPERVISING INVESTIGATOR.
07- 54 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE FUNDING FOR SIX
SUPERVISING OFFICE ASSISTANTS AND EIGHT OFFICE ASSISTANT II’S.
07- 55 THE PUBLIC DEFENDER DEVELOP AND INITIATE A CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM.
07- 56 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE
IN VICTORVILLE AND IN FONTANA FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER USE.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
50
SHERIFF- CORONER
BARSTOW SHERIFF’S STATION
AND DETENTION FACILITY
BACKGROUND
The Barstow Sheriff’s Station was established in 1890. The present station ( a
former Barstow City police office and jail) is the oldest in the County and has been in
use since the early 1950’ s. The building also houses courtrooms and offices for the
Superior Court.
The jail and booking facility is used by the Sheriff’s Department, Barstow Police,
California Highway Patrol, Burlington Northern Railway Detectives and, on occasion,
Military Police Criminal Intelligence Division investigators from Fort Irwin and the
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base.
Deputies from this station have patrol jurisdiction over 10,000 square miles,
more than half of the total square miles of the County. This area includes Baker,
Daggett, Hinkley, Lenwood, Ludlow, Newberry Springs, Sandy Valley, Yermo, Red
Mountain and Trona.
Station staffing consists of 71 personnel, including one captain, one lieutenant,
five sergeants, four corporal/ detectives, six jail deputies, one secretary, three office
specialists, five custody specialists, five custody specialist assistants, one automotive
and five station officers.
FINDINGS
Prisoner meals are stored in a refrigerator prior to being heated and served.
Food is transported from the Glen Helen jail.
A staff of trustees maintains the station and jail. They have a separate dormitory
that is too small for the number of inmates. When these trustees have visitation with
their families, there is not a visitation room and they use a small, secured patio off the
staff conference room.
Inmates are generally held for 36 hours or less before being transported to
Adelanto or West Valley facilities, unless they are to appear before the Barstow Superior
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
51
Court for arraignment. They are then transported and returned on the day of their next
court appearance.
Parking lot facilities are inadequate for Sheriff vehicles and most deputies and
employees must park on unsecured streets.
Evidence storage space is seriously inadequate. Firearms are not in lockers.
Evidence workers have inadequate space and security in a 6’ x 6’ room. Drugs and
cash are not kept permanently on site, but are periodically transported to the Criminal
Services Unit in San Bernardino. Station ammunition is stored on shelves in a 4’ x 2’
hallway wall locker.
The detectives’ office is only 16’ x 12’ and contains desks and files for the
station’s several investigators. The adjacent interview room is a former closet and is
used as a fingerprint room for applicants for various non- criminal permits.
The station and jail’s air conditioning system is inadequate for the severe desert
climate. Some holding cells in the women’s section are unusable due to chronic
plumbing problems, and no fire suppression sprinklers were observed in the cell area or
station proper.
Communication between the jail and the adjacent courtrooms is outdated. It
usually consists of necessary defendant paperwork being slid under a door from the
court to the jail.
Only one deputy is on jail duty per shift, with a Sheriff Correction Specialist. The
deputy is responsible for jail security in transferring prisoners to court bailiffs.
Adjacent to the facility is a small city- owned park, purchased from the County for
$ 1 several years ago. It would be the most cost effective site if the Board of
Supervisors ever considered enlarging the station. An evaluation should be done as the
condition and age of the facility might necessitate building a new station at another
location.
Several new developments and industries, plus the proposed new Indian casino,
are scheduled for the area. The Sheriff will then need to develop new staffing and
strategies to maintain the high level of law enforcement that citizens now enjoy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 57 REMODEL AND EXPAND THE EXISTING BARSTOW JAIL AND SHERIFF’S
STATION USING THE VACANT CITY LAND NEXT TO THE FACILITY.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
52
07- 58 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZES A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN TO BUILD AND FINANCE A NEW STATION AND JAIL IN BARSTOW.
07- 59 THE SHERIFF EVALUATE STAFFING NEEDS FOR THE FACILITY IN
BARSTOW.
CENTRAL COURT HOLDING FACILITY
BACKGROUND
The Penal Code requires the Grand Jury investigate the conditions and
management of County detention facilities.
The Sheriff’s Central Court holding facility is located on the fourth floor of the
San Bernardino County Central Courthouse. It is a temporary holding facility for people
in custody who are awaiting court appearances. The facility is classified as a “ Class II
Detention Facility” ( pending arraignment during trial and upon sentencing), as
prescribed by Title 15 Minimum Jail Standards. Built in 1926, it was originally the only
San Bernardino County Jail.
The facility accommodates approximately 120- 200 inmates daily. Staff is
comprised of six Deputy Sheriffs and one Sheriff Custody Specialist, who work Monday-
Friday from 6: 00 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m.
FINDINGS
Inmates are in waist chains and leg irons when bussed daily from West Valley,
Central and Adelanto detention facilities for their court appearances. They are
transferred from the bus to a security elevator that only stops on the first and fourth
floors. This elevator can only accommodate 3,000 pounds or 13 ( 1 deputy and 12
inmates per load) and is operated by an inmate trustee.
After arriving at the fourth floor, the leg irons are removed and inmates are
placed into separate juvenile, male and female holding cells. Males are further
separated until their appearance in court. When their cases are called, they are
transferred to the court annex, under guard, through different stairs and security doors.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
53
The holding area and cells are clean considering the age of the facility. It
contains a small storeroom and small breakfast and lunch area for the guards.
Exterminators are attempting to solve a recurring rodent and flea problem. The cooling
system is adequate. There are 24 unoperable floor drains.
The Fire Suppression Pre- Plan Protocol and Emergency Evacuation Plan,
coordinated with the San Bernardino City Fire Department, is updated every two years.
According to this plan, there are several exits in and out of holding cells. The
plan calls for the majority of inmates to be evacuated through the kitchen stairwell, the
stairway behind Departments S- 17 and S- 18, and the stairway behind Department S- 21,
plus the Court Annex passageway. It does not explain the evacuation plan if the Court
Annex exit is destroyed or closed due to an emergency, or the electricity to the
elevators is disrupted.
Considering the age of the facility and the plans to build a new courthouse,
major expenditures are not financially feasible.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 60 THE PLUMBING AND DRAIN PROBLEMS IN THE CENTRAL COURTHOUSE
HOLDING FACILITY NEED TO BE REPAIRED.
07- 61 UPDATE THE FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN AND MODIFY THE EVACUATION
PLAN FOR THE COURTHOUSE HOLDING FACILITY.
CORONER DIVISION
BACKGROUND
The 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury investigated the Coroner’s facility. The report found
the facility in unacceptable condition. Bodies were stacked three or four high and an
extremely bad odor existed throughout the facility, originally built in 1986.
Recommendations were made to increase the size of the Coroner’s Facility,
remodel it entirely and add additional refrigeration capacity, as well as the additional
staff to the Coroner’s office.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
54
FINDINGS
Recently, the Board of Supervisors assigned the Coroner’s duties to the Sheriff’s
Department.
In November 2006 remodeling was begun on the entire Coroner’s Facility,
including the installation of a new roof.
A new and larger refrigeration/ freezer system has been installed in addition to
the existing refrigeration system. Facility upgrades include the autopsy stations,
anthropology room and a facility for pathologists. When finished, the new morgue will
hold approximately 170 bodies. Since the merger, the Board of Supervisors has
approved 19 new staff positions and when filled, the office will have 51 full- time
positions.
The Sheriff is recruiting RN’s, ex- officers and paramedics, embalmers, and fire
personnel. They will receive four months departmental training and two weeks
specialized training. When fully staffed, the Coroner’s Office will have three full- time
and three part- time pathologists. Additional investigators are needed to identify a
backlog of unidentified persons.
The remodeling of the Coroner’s Facility is a four- part process. The Grand Jury’s
visit on April 12, 2007, found stage one of the remodeling almost complete. Final
completion is scheduled for September 2007.
The Sheriff’s Office requested the Board of Supervisors provide an additional
Coroner’s facility in the high desert area. This request was approved and an Apple
Valley mortuary was obtained and is being remodeled. The Apple Valley facility is a
lease with option to buy. The additional facility has given the County two Coroner’s
facilities to handle the growing population of San Bernardino County.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 62 THE COUNTY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CORONER INVESTIGATORS FOR
THE BACKLOG OF UNIDENTIFIED BODIES.
07- 63 COMPLETE REMODELING OF THE APPLE VALLEY FACILITY AND HAVE
THE REAL ESTATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATE OPTION TO
PURCHASE FACILITY.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
55
IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ( ICE)
BACKGROUND
The Immigration Customs Enforcement ( ICE) Unit is administrated by the Sheriff
of the County of San Bernardino. Operations began January 2006 at West Valley
Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga only. The mission is to screen all prisoners
booked at the facility to determine immigration status. San Bernardino County was the
first to initiate the program in California.
FINDINGS
The Unit, consisting of nine specialists and one supervisor, is in operation
Monday through Friday, 5: 00 a. m. until midnight at the West Valley Detention Center
only. The Unit is supervised by the Sheriff’s Department.
The specialists must be bilingual and attend ICE training, which is funded by the
Federal government. They receive no extra pay or allowance to serve in these
positions. They also are required to have a high secret clearance. Only the ICE
specialists are authorized access to the computers and files. All operations are
monitored by Federal ICE personnel. Adequate office and work space is provided.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 64 EXPAND THE ICE PROGRAM TO INCLUDE ALL SHERIFF’S JAIL BOOKING
FACILITIES.
07- 65 CONSIDER PROVIDING STIPENDS TO ICE SPECIALISTS.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
56
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS UNIT
BACKGROUND
The Sheriff’s Scientific Investigation Division provides support in the investigation
of crimes committed within the County of San Bernardino. Division personnel have
been commended for their expertise and assistance in solving crimes. This includes
evidence monitoring, crime scene investigation, photos, evidence gathering, ballistics
testing, and the analysis and testing of DNA.
FINDINGS
The workspace area is not adequate for the amount of investigative services that
the division provides. The FBI recommends that there be 1,000 square feet of space
for each analyst, but the current facility has 46 analysts in 15,226 square feet. There
are currently only 10 crime scene investigators but more are needed. Evidence is
brought to the facility from all Sheriff and police agencies in the County and is stored on
site.
One particular concern is the area where evidence vehicles are stored. They are
housed outside in an unprotected area and are severely compromised by weather,
animals and vandalism. The last two Grand Juries have recommended that something
should be done to make the area more secure.
The Sheriff’s Department currently supplies all kits for evidence gathering to all
law enforcement agencies in San Bernardino County for blood alcohol, sex offense, DNA
swabs and blood tubes at no charge.
A digital server is needed that would download and secure all photos. Photos
are currently unsecured and some evidence has appeared on websites. This would
eliminate the physical storage of all photos, which occupies substantial space.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 66 HIRE ADDITIONAL DNA ANALYSTS AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS.
07- 67 PROVIDE AN AREA INSIDE A WAREHOUSE OR INVESTIGATE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MORE FEASIBLE WAY TO HOUSE VEHICLES
INVOLVED IN CRIMES.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
57
07- 68 CHARGE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES A NOMINAL FEE FOR ALL
EVIDENCE KITS.
07- 69 PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A DIGITAL SERVER TO DOWNLOAD AND
SECURE ALL PHOTOS.
SHERIFF’S TRAINING CENTER/ ACADEMY
BACKGROUND
The 23- week basic Academy training program lasts 920 hours and is considered
by California Peace Officer Standards and Training ( POST) to be one of the top basic
academies in the State. POST has recognized the need for peace officers to have
strong values of leadership, ethics, and community policing.
The curriculum and format has been recognized as the standard for all the other
basic academy programs in the State. This past year, 121 students completed the basic
Academy program.
FINDINGS
The Academy trains recruits for the Sheriff’s Department and as well as other
police departments.
Class sizes vary from 40 to 70 students. Recruits at the Academy spend 40
hours a week in the training program.
One of the most difficult areas of training is report writing. San Bernardino
Community College provides an instructor to assist in educating the recruits in this area.
There are four academies conducted each year.
The training center consists of 650 acres on three different sites. Some of the
facilities are old, in poor condition and have mold issues that are being resolved.
Sewers have to be pumped every day. There is an occasional flooding problem area
during heavy rains. Transporting personnel into the grounds by helicopter has been
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
58
necessary when flood occurs. An alternative route west of the facility is currently under
development and could provide an alternate route.
The Academy offers training in other areas: Advanced Officer Training, Mounted
Enforcement, Firearms Training, Motorcycle Training, Driver Training and Advanced
Defensive Driving.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 70 DEVELOP AN ALTERNATE, FLOOD FREE ROUTE, INTO THE GROUND OF
THE SHERIFF’S TRAINING FACILITY.
07- 71 REPAIR BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN POOR CONDITION AND REMOVE
MOLD.
public and support services
COMMITTEE Back – Ron Brooks, Victor Edinburgh, Kenneth Taylor- Chair
Center – Roderic Moers, William Howard, Burrel Woodring
Front – Lois Long, Carol Sharp
Not pictured – Marianne Della Marna, Clyde Metzler
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
59
PUBLIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES
COMMITTEE
The Public and Support Services Group ( PSSG) was formed during a County
organizational restructuring approved by the Board of Supervisors in May 2005. This
group includes most departments having a strong interface with the general public, as
well as a number of internal support departments.
PSSG Administration coordinates the administrative and budget activities of
fourteen County departments charged with providing services to the public and to other
County departments. The departments of PSSG that were reviewed are as follows:
Agriculture/ Weights and Measures
Airports
Architecture and Engineering
County Fire
County Library
County Museum
Fleet Management
Land Use Services
• Building and Safety
• Code Enforcement
• Planning
Regional Parks
Registrar of Voters
Special Districts
The departments not reviewed are as follows:
Facilities Management
Public Works
• Surveyor
• Transportation/ Flood Control
• Waste Systems Division
Real Estate Services
The actions of the PSSG Committee resulted in the following findings and
recommendations.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
60
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
CONFIRE JPA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
BACKGROUND
The San Bernardino County Fire Department’s CONFIRE Joint Powers Agreement
( JPA) Communications Center ( Comm Center), is located in the City of Rialto, southwest
of the Rialto Municipal Airport. It is located in the same security complex as the County
Office of Emergency Services. Its primary mission is to provide 24/ 7 direct
Fire/ Emergency Medical Services ( EMS) dispatch services.
Member agencies of the CONFIRE JPA are San Bernardino County Fire
Department and all 36 consolidated fire county districts, plus fire departments for the
cities of Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands and Rialto. They also contract with Running
Springs and Twentynine Palms fire districts for this service.
The Comm Center is also the operational area dispatch center for several
County departments. It is also responsible for mutual aid dispatching requests and it
handles all air ambulance calls and multi- casualty incidents for this area.
FINDINGS
The Center is now in a 5- year- old permanent Butler- built type building. They
were located in a nearby temporary building with 9- 1- 1 and Sheriff Dispatchers. The
Comm Center has 58 personnel assigned with approximately 26 on duty at any one
time.
They have eight radio dispatchers and two intake personnel. They work 12- hour
shifts and are cross- trained in all systems. Qualified dispatchers are in great demand
and have a significant turnover in the public service field.
County Fire and the Sheriff’s Department have been awarded a $ 300,000
Homeland Security grant. It provided a Request for Proposal ( RFP) to hire consulting
services for the new joint communications center for County Fire and County Sheriff.
The contract has been awarded to DMJM Designs/ AECEM in Orange, California, and the
results of the study will be completed by December 31, 2007. The study will
recommend a permanent location, combining services of the two locations, the
financing and time frame for the new center along with other recommendations.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
61
Past Grand Jury recommendations were reviewed with the Comm Center
Director. Mostly those recommendations were concerns of security and overcrowding
at the center. Even though some of those conditions still exist, the proposed joint
center that is being planned with the Sheriff’s Department will address and solve most
of those concerns. The department is small and little known and the public needs to be
informed of this useful and valuable department.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 72 REVAMP THE PAY SCALES AND BENEFITS TO BETTER RETAIN
DISPATCHERS. THIS WILL ALSO HELP IN RECRUITING EMPLOYEES.
07- 73 ACT PROMPTLY TO IMPLEMENT THE STUDY OF THE COMM CENTER.
07- 74 INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THIS UNIQUE AND VALUABLE DEPARTMENT.
Support Services Center, Hazardous Material
Division, and Sewell Training Center
BACKGROUND
There are three County Fire Centers located at the San Bernardino International
Airport ( SBIA) on approximately 10 acres leased from the airport authority. The facility
consists of a mixture of old original hangars and temporary manufactured buildings.
The Support Service Center provides three support activities: Vehicle Services
( repair and outfitting of all fire engines and support vehicles), Warehouse Services and
Facilities Maintenance.
The Hazardous Materials Center is responsible for routine inspections, operating
household hazardous waste collection facilities and responds to citizen complaints about
hazardous waste problems. This operation is recognized by the state and federal
government as a leader in household hazardous waste management.
The Sewell Training Center, in conjunction with Crafton Hills College, has 11
weeks of classwork encompassing all aspects of real- life firefighting techniques that
includes 480 hours of field training. The Center provides three fire academies per year.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
62
FINDINGS
The SBIA Joint Powers Authority consists of representatives from the cities of
Loma Linda, Colton, Highland, San Bernardino, and the County of San Bernardino. The
SBIA Authority has notified the County that they are not renewing the lease they have
had with County Fire since 1995. The lease called for 10 years, plus two three- year
options. The last three- year option will expire in 2011.
According to SBIA, “ with the closure of Rialto Airport, we are placing some
aircraft oriented business on our site. In 2011, we may need to acquire the County Fire
facilities space for our SBIA use for aircraft placement and aviation use.” In addition,
SBIA reported, “ County Fire is considered non- aviation and consequently, the FAA ( who
have oversight on leases at the airport) will not support a lease renewal.” SBIA is
uncertain whether another of their off- airport sites will be available to relocate the three
centers.
In the County Fire Business Plan for 2006- 07, Goal Six recommends the following
steps to complete the facilities relocation: “( a) Perform a needs assessment and space
allocation study; ( b) Research available real estate based on space allocation study; ( c)
Estimate project cost and identify potential revenue sources to fund relocation of a
facility; and ( d) Present recommendations to Board of Supervisors for viable options.”
County Fire is involved in a reorganization of 36 fire districts into four regions.
The application is before LAFCO ( Local Agency Formation Commission) and should be
completed this year. LAFCO informs the Grand Jury that with some minor adjustments,
it should be before the Board of Supervisors sometime this fall.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 75 EXPLORE WITH SAN BERNARDINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON
ALTERNATE OFF- AIRPORT RELOCATION SITES.
07- 76 EXECUTE 2006- 07 BUSINESS PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
RELOCATION OF THREE COUNTY FIRE COMMUNICATION CENTERS AND
PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
07- 77 COMPLETE THE REORGANIZATION OF THE 36 COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS
THAT IS BEFORE LAFCO.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
63
LAND USE SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury received complaints on the responsibilities and duties of the San
Bernardino County Land Use Services Department. This department has a staff of
approximately 200 employees. They have four divisions: Current Planning, Advance
Planning, Building and Safety, which is responsible for the issuance of permits, and
Code Enforcement, which regulates and enforces these codes.
The main complaint was regarding the County Development Codes provisions for
native plant protection and allegedly illegal removal of Joshua trees and other native
plants ( S. B. Ordinance 3341, County of San Bernardino Development Code, Title 8,
Division 3, 83.10.080,( c),( 1),( A),( B), and Division 6, 86.09.090,( b),( 4),( 5),( 6)).
FINDINGS
During an interview with the Department, it was revealed that they have a
serious shortage of professional planners due to salary competition from the private
sector. This creates difficulty in recruiting new staff members.
It was also disclosed that other than Cal Poly Pomona, there is no college in this
area that offers a dedicated planning career curriculum.
The Grand Jury found that many developers of both large and small
developments are removing and destroying numerous Joshua trees and other native
plants that are under the ordinances of protecting native trees and plants. It is the
responsibility of Code Enforcement to enforce these ordinances within the County and
local law enforcement to enforce the codes within their jurisdictions.
The investigation found that because there is an apparent lack of code
enforcement, it may be costing the County a substantial amount of revenue as well as
the loss of protected trees and plants.
The technology of aerial photos/ GPS shows plant growth on larger
developments. The system is newly in place, but not yet widely used.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
64
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 78 MAKE AN EFFORT TO NOTIFY AREA UNIVERSITIES THAT THE COUNTY
HAS A SERIOUS NEED FOR PLANNERS; IT SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER
OFFERING GRANTS AND SCHOLARSHIPS TO QUALIFIED STUDENTS IN
EXCHANGE FOR MULTIYEAR COMMITMENTS TO THE COUNTY WITH
FULL- TIME EMPLOYMENT AS AN ULTIMATE GOAL.
07- 79 WHEN A LAND USE PERMIT IS PULLED, REQUIRE PRE- INSPECTION
BEFORE THE WORK BEGINS ON LARGE AND SMALL DEVELOPMENTS.
INFORM ALL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF CODES AND
LAWS REGARDING PROTECTED PLANTS AND TREES. THESE AGENCIES
ARE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THESE ORDINANCES AND COLLABORATE
ON ENFORCEMENT WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
07- 80 THE EXISTING TECHNOLOGY OF AERIAL PHOTOS/ GPS BE USED TO THE
FULLEST EXTENT.
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
65
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury investigated the Registrar of Voters ( ROV) to look at issues
concerning the last election. In order to do a comprehensive investigation, it was
concluded that the Grand Jury follow the election process and get an understanding of
all the pre- election requirements. Specifically, the Grand Jury attended the Logic and
Accuracy testing of election procedures, observed the voting process election night, and
interviewed the ROV and staff following the election.
FINDINGS
The temperature in the ROV warehouse did not maintain the required 78
degrees. This temperature requirement is critical because of the temperature- sensitive
paper of the VeriVoter printer attached to the Direct Recording Electronic ( DRE)
machine. The printed record of each vote cast from the voting machine is the backup
counting of all the votes cast and, therefore, must be relied upon if there is a recount or
challenge to the DRE machine.
Part of the Logic and Accuracy testing was testing a small sample ballot
procedure. The ballots are run through eight scanners in the absentee ballot counting
room. The process should guarantee that the optical scanners were accurately reading
the test ballots. It was noticed that some of the optical scanners would shred and
crumple the test ballots, requiring the ROV to duplicate the damaged test ballots in
accordance with the Elections Code.
The ROV makes a complete check of each DRE machine to see if it is set to “ 0”.
The DRE machine remains sealed inside and outside during the actual election process.
The Grand Jury participated in a Logic and Accuracy testing process in which
individual votes of the different precincts were cast. They were afforded the
opportunity to observe the votes they actually cast and the VeriVoter printer attached
to the DRE machine. These votes were tallied and verified on the machine attached to
the DRE in a printed format and simultaneously stored in a cartridge that is built into
the DRE unit itself.
The ROV has recently received funding from the Board of Supervisors for a
remodel of the facility. The statement from ROV was that some of the funding will be
2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
66
used to set and maintain the correct storage temperature for the temperature- sensitive
paper from the voting machine.
The ROV is aware that issues emerged countywide regarding the election, which
included a small number of DRE's being inoperable, VeriVoters running out of paper and
shortage of paper ballots especially when lines began to grow longer. The ROV stated
that staff is aware of these issues and will be better prepared and equipped for the next
election.
The ROV reported that the training of a pool of steady workers is an ongoing
challenge and a specific concern at each election, as each election is different. New
technology is constantly improving and new advances assume that there can be
“ glitches.”
Security cameras have been installed throughout the facility but will not be
operational until the completion of the office remodel project indicated above. Once
activated, the monitoring of cameras will be done at the ROV facility by ROV staff.
RECOMMENDATIONS
07- 81 UPGRADE THE TEMPERATURE CONTROL IN THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
WAREHOUSE TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT 78 DEGREES.
07- 82 UPGRADE BALLOT- COUNTING SCANNERS.
07- 83 DURING THE ELECTION PROCESS: ( 1) PREVENT THE VOTING
MACHINES FROM RUNNING OUT OF PRINT PAPER AND
MALFUNCTIONING; ( 2) ASSURE THAT THERE WILL BE NO SHORTAGE OF
PAPER BALLOTS COUNTY- WIDE; ( 3) OFFER YEAR- ROUND TRAINING;
AND, ( 4) ACTIVATE THE SECURITY SYSTEM.
APPENDIX i
ABOUT THE
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GRAND JURY
The San Bernardino County Grand Jury is a body of 19 citizens who are charged
and sworn to investigate County matters of civil concern as well as inquire into public
offenses committed or triable within the County. The Grand Jury’s duties, powers,
responsibilities, qualifications and selection processes are outlined in the Penal Code of
California § 888 et seq.
Duties
The Grand Jury reviews and evaluates procedures, methods and systems utilized
by local government to determine whether they can be made more efficient and
effective. It may examine any aspect of the County government or a city government,
including special legislative districts and joint powers agencies, to ensure that the best
interests of San Bernardino County residents are being served. The Grand Jury may
inquire into written complaints brought to it by the public.
The Grand Jury functions lawfully only as a body; no individual member acting
alone has any power or authority. Meetings of the Grand Jury are not open to the
public, and discussions and voting are required by law to be kept private and
confidential.
The Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to inquire into the condition and
management of the detention facilities within the County; investigate and report on the
operations, accounts and records of county and other local public agencies, officers,
departments or functions; inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of
public officers; and, submit a final report of its finding and recommendations no later
than the end of its term to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Agencies to
which these recommendations are directed are required to comment on both the
findings and the specific recommendations.
The Grand Jury may request the issuance by the Superior Court of subpoenas.
The Grand Jury may conduct hearings to determine whether sufficient evidence exists
to bring an indictment charging a person with a public offense. However, the District
Attorney usually calls for impanelment of separate juries drawn from the petit ( regular
trials) jury pool to bring criminal indictments.
Qualifications
A Grand Juror must be a citizen of the United States; be at least 18 years old; be
a resident of California and San Bernardino County for at least one year immediately
ii
prior to selection; possess ordinary intelligence, sound judgment, and good character,
and, possess a sufficient knowledge of the English language to communicate both orally
and in writing. A Grand Juror cannot be serving as a trial juror in any California court;
have been discharged as a Grand Juror in any California court within one year of the
beginning date of service, July 1; have been convicted of malfeasance in office, any
felony or other high crimes, or be serving as an elected public official.
Other desirable qualities of a Grand Juror are good health; open- mindedness;
sensitivity to and concern for the view of others; skill in working with others in a group
setting; interest in and knowledge of community affairs; skill and experience in fact
finding; skill and experience in report writing; working knowledge of computers, and
general knowledge of the responsibilities, function, and authority of county and city
governments.
Commitment
The complex, diverse responsibilities of Grand Jurors make it necessary to give a
serious commitment to the time requirements. The Grand Jury term is for one year and
the usual work week is three to four days. Additionally, attendance at some evening
meetings may be required. Jurors are provided with meeting facilities and adjacent
parking in San Bernardino.
Remuneration
Jurors are paid per diem ( currently $ 25 per day) based on actual days worked
and provided free parking. Holidays, vacation, and other time off are taken without
remuneration. Mileage is reimbursed for travel between Jurors’ residences and the
Grand Jury office and for travel on business of the Grand Jury.
Application Process
Any interested citizen who meets the required qualifications and is able to make
the time commitment should request an application from the Grand Jury Office in
writing to the Grand Jury Assistant, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, Room 200, San
Bernardino, CA 92415- 0243. You can also find the application on the Grand Jury
website at www. sbcounty. gov/ grandjury.
Selection Process
Panels of judges review applicants for Grand Jury service. Every effort is made
to recruit men and women from all socio- economic levels, ethnic and age groups.
Applicants are judged on the knowledge, skills and abilities required for successful
performance as a Grand Juror.
iii
Applicants who are found to be best qualified, interested and available to serve
will be given a background check by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office and
become a finalist for the list of potential Grand Jurors, which may not exceed 30 names.
In order to comply with the law, potential Grand Jurors are selected from the
County Supervisorial Districts in proportion to the population of those districts. In San
Bernardino County, six applicants from each of the five Supervisorial Districts are
named to the Grand Jury panel.
The 30 persons selected will constitute the Grand Jury panel and are summoned
to appear in court where all names are placed in a lottery draw. The first 19 names
chosen become the next San Bernardino County Grand Jury. The remaining names are
retained for use as alternates when necessary.
Shortly before the beginning of the Grand Jury term of service, an orientation
process is conducted. The presiding judge of the Superior Court selects the foreperson,
with all other officers chosen by the Jury itself.
Organization
To carry out its responsibilities, the Grand Jury generally organizes itself into
committees. Areas of focus may include administration, finance, education,
environment, health, law enforcement, and social services. The Foreperson is
appointed by the Presiding Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court from among the
jurors. The Grand Jury determines its rules of procedure.
For more information, please visit the Grand Jury website at
www. sbcounty. gov/ grandjury
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (San Bernardino County)--Periodicals.; San Bernardino County (Calif.)--Politics and government--Periodicals. |
| Description | Description based on: 2003/2004; title from opening screen of PDF.; Harvested from the web on 11/6/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (San Bernardino County) |
| Publisher | San Bernardino County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144613424; http://www.sbcounty.gov/grandjury/splash.asp |
| Language | eng |
| Relation | http://worldcat.org/oclc/144613424/viewonline |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | Mode of access: Internet.; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. |
| Transcript | 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2006- 2007 editorial COMMITE Back – Gary Moran, Burrel Woodring, Roderic Moers Front – JoAnn Miller, Lois Long- Chair, Carol Sharp The Editorial Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their hard work and invaluable assistance in the preparation of the Final Report of the 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury. Graphic Arts Silvia Schreiber, Graphic Designer Cover Design Silvia Schreiber, Graphic Designer Photographs Silvia Schreiber, Graphic Designer Printing Services County Printing Services Personnel Typing/ Preparation Melonee Vartanian, Grand Jury Assistant 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, Room 200, Courthouse San Bernardino, CA 92415- 0243 • ( 909) 387- 3820 Fax ( 909) 387- 4170 GRAND JURY COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOREMAN’S STATEMENT In accordance with the Constitution of the State of California ( Article 1, Section 23), each county in the state shall draw and summon one or more Grand Juries each year. The citizen- residents of San Bernardino County have been performing this public service and duty for more than 150 years. Drawing on volunteers from throughout the county and each supervisorial district, the 19- member 2006/ 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury was impaneled and sworn in for one year, effective July 1, 2006. ( Details of Grand Jury background, membership, duties, obligations, and commitments are given in the appendix at the end of this report.) What follows is the consensus Final Report of the activities, investigations, finding and recommendation of the 2006/ 2007 Grand Jury. It represents the year- long effort to look into local government toward the goal of improving the function of government in service to county residents. This report does not include many investigations conducted which were later deemed not of sufficient merit, quality or quantity to present to the public. In addition to its civil investigations, the Grand Jury assisted the County District Attorney with five investigative hearings on criminal matters. Service on a Grand Jury can be considered a privilege and a duty. The men and women of this Grand Jury applied themselves with a full measure of both. The thousands of hours they collectively devoted to learning about government and its complexities, their ability to collect, analyze and distill great amounts of information to concise, meaningful reports, and their determination to be fair and honest in their investigations should be greatly appreciated. In the quest for knowledge about County government operations, Jurors spent evenings and off- days attending functions such as graduation ceremonies of the Sheriff’s Academy in San Bernardino, the “ State of the County” presentation in Ontario, and sessions of “ Service First,” the countywide customer service improvement program. In addition, Jurors in their investigations, traveled the county to such diverse locations as Rancho Cucamonga to the west, Barstow to the north and Yucca Valley to the east, most often on off- days and using their own vehicles. On another level, the giving of time by Grand Jurors to their public service, while sacrificing personal agendas such as vacations, is worthy of a very strong Thank You. To several Jurors, whose commitment and effort were truly “ above and beyond,” there is a special thanks owed, especially from their fellow Jurors. Notwithstanding Juror effort, this report is in no small way the result of the high level of access given by the County Board of Supervisors ( all of whom were individually interviewed), the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and other elected officials, as well as county government department heads and individual county employees. A particular note of access is made of County Administrative Officer, Mark Uffer, who met at least six times during our year with the Full Grand Jury or its committees. We found little reluctance by the people in the county government to talk to the Grand Jury in confidence about any subject governing their jobs or government operations. A special recognition must be given to two people who have together shaped County Grand Juries, including this one, for more than 30 years. Sue Shuey, Grand Jury Assistant, and Clark Hansen, Jr., Deputy District Attorney and Grand Jury Legal Advisor. Their knowledge and guidance was invaluable. On behalf of the 2006/ 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury, I trust this report of our service in the interest of good government will prove to be beneficial to all the residents of the county. ALFRED J. DUBIEL Foreman 2006/ 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury DEDICATION AND 54 YEARS OF SERVICE Susan ( Sue) Shuey and Clark A. Hansen, Jr. Susan ( Sue) Shuey, Grand Jury Assistant, and Clark A. Hansen, Jr., Grand Jury Legal Advisor, have a combined 54 years of professional, dedicated service to San Bernardino County’s Grand Jury. The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury is proud to dedicate this final report to these two outstanding public servants on their retirement this year. Sue Shuey began her career with the county in 1968 as a clerk in the County Administrative Office. She was promoted several times in the CAO office and in 1974, she was assigned as secretary to the Grand Jury and as secretary to the Presiding Judge. She also was supervisor for six judicial secretaries. In 1983, the new Court Executive Office relieved her of her supervisor duties and assigned her full time to the Grand Jury. That was 33 years, and 627 Grand Jury members ago. Clark A. Hansen, Jr. graduated with honors in 1963 from USC Law School. He became a San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney in 1964 and he rose to the position of Chief Deputy District Attorney. He left the District Attorney’s Office in 1978 to return to the private practice of law. In 1986, he returned to the District Attorney’s Office to become the legal advisor for the Grand Jury. In 1996, Clark retired from the County as a Deputy District Attorney. On his retirement, he was hired by the District Attorney as a special consultant and contracted to advise the Grand Jury until his retirement this year. 2006- 2007 GRAND JURY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Alfred J. Dubiel Foreman Victor G. Edinburgh Foreman Pro Tem JoAnn L. Miller Secretary Marianne Della Marna Assistant Secretary Ron Brooks Sergeant- at- Arms Ellen L. Miller Assistant Sergeant- at- Arms Ron Brooks Pinon Hills Jeanne Choisnet San Bernardino Marianne Della Marna Alta Loma Alfred J. Dubiel Ontario Victor G. Edinburgh San Bernardino William E. Howard Rialto Lois C. Long Lytle Creek Thomas Ma Ontario Clyde Metzler Victorville Ellen L. Miller Fontana JoAnn L. Miller San Bernardino Roderic J. Moers San Bernardino Gary Moran Yucaipa Roy H. Nierman Highland Carol Sharp Crestline Kenneth D. Taylor Running Springs Elias G. Valdez Running Springs Burrel S. Woodring Yucaipa Dennis Zimmerman Chino Hills RESIGNATIONS: Suzanne T. Reading, August 2006 Presiding Judge 2006- 07 Larry W. Allen Legal Advisor Clark A. Hansen, Jr. Grand Jury Assistant Susan L. Shuey ( Retired) Grand Jury Assistant Melonee A. Vartanian san bernardino county grand jury 2006- 2007 From left to right: Back row – Kenneth Taylor, Dennis Zimmerman, Victor Edinburgh, Ron Brooks, Gary Moran, Alfred Dubiel- Foreman, Thomas Ma Center row – Burrel Woodring, William Howard, JoAnn Miller, Roy Nierman, Elias Valdez, Roderic Moers Front row – Sue Shuey, Clark Hansen, Ellen Miller, Carol Sharp, Jeanne Choisnet, Lois Long, Melonee Vartanian Not pictured – Marianne Della Marna and Clyde Metzler Larry W. Allen, Presiding Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS 2006- 2007 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Page ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE 1 Architecture and Engineering 303 Building 2 Board of Supervisors/ County Counsel 4 County Administrative Officer 9 Human Resources Department 10 Information Services 12 Public Health Department Animal Care and Control 14 Vector Control Program 15 Risk Management 18 Solid Waste 20 AUDIT/ FISCAL COMMITTEE 23 Assessor 24 COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE 26 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 27 Redevelopment 28 HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE 29 Department of Aging and Adult Services Ombudsman 30 Department of Children’s Services Foster Care 32 Page LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE 33 Indigent Defense Contracts 34 Indigent Defense Fee Collection 36 Judicial Benefits 39 Probation 42 Public Defender 47 Sheriff- Coroner Barstow Sheriff’s Station 50 Central Court Holding 52 Coroner Division 53 Immigration Customs Enforcement ( ICE) 55 Scientific Investigations Division 56 Sheriff’s Training Center/ Academy 57 PUBLIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES COMMITTEE 59 County Fire Department Communication Center 60 Support Services/ Hazardous Material/ Sewell Training Center 61 Land Use Services 63 Registrar of Voters 65 APPENDIX About the San Bernardino County Grand Jury ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE Back – JoAnn Miller, Roy Nierman- Chair, Elias Valdez, Gary Moran Center – Carol Sharp, Lois Long, Roderic Moers Front – Ellen Miller, Jeanne Choisnet 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE The Administrative Committee investigated the following boards, departments and agencies: Architecture and Engineering 303 Building Board of Supervisors County Administrative Office Ethics Officer County Counsel Human Resources Information Services Public Health Animal Care and Control Vector Control Program Risk Management Solid Waste Management Four committee members attended all of the Board of Supervisors’ meetings on Tuesdays. The committee received one complaint, which resulted in a final report on Solid Waste Management. The Administrative Committee and the Public and Support Services Committee jointly investigated the 303 Building which resulted in a final report. A comprehensive investigation of the Board of Supervisors and County Counsel has resulted in a final report. On behalf of all members of the Administrative Committee, we thank the members of the Board of Supervisors, the County Counsel and her staff, and all department heads for their cooperation and support during our term. The actions of the Administrative Committee resulted in the following findings and recommendations. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 2 ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING 303 BUILDING BACKGROUND On May 17, 2005, San Bernardino County Supervisors and 303 LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation, concluded a negotiation for the purchase of a building herein after called “ 303 building.” Those departments included in the negotiations from San Bernardino County were the Board of Supervisors, Real Estate Services, County Counsel, and Architecture and Engineering. The purchase agreement for the building was $ 4,625,000 with many fees and payments added. The following departments were involved in the purchase: 1. Real Estate Services negotiated the cost structure. 2. County Counsel reviewed the sale contract. 3. Architecture and Engineering was involved, providing cost estimating and timetable’s aspect. FINDINGS The 303 building was purchased for $ 4,625,000. There was a representation by 303 LLC, based on a consulting services survey they initiated, that approximately $ 10,000 abatement costs would make the building habitable. The County has now spent $ 637,647 for asbestos removal ( see Board of Supervisors agenda of July 11, 2006) and $ 360,432 for lead- based paint removal ( see Board of Supervisors agenda of October 31, 2006). 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 3 The County did not perform any environmental surveys prior to purchase, but relied on a survey by a consulting service hired by 303 LLC. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 01 COUNTY AGENCIES CONDUCT THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF ANY LAND OR BUILDING. 07- 02 THAT COUNTY COUNSEL INSURE ALL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS ARE COMPLETED BY THE COUNTY BEFORE AGREEING TO “ AS IS” OR “ WITH ALL FAULTS” PURCHASES. 07- 03 THAT COUNTY COUNSEL PURSUE REIMBURSEMENT FOR COUNTY ABATEMENT COSTS OF: a. ASBESTOS REMOVAL $ 637,647 b. LEAD- BASE PAINT REMOVAL $ 360,432. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BACKGROUND This report concerning the Board of Supervisors was initiated after reviewing a barrage of negative information being reported by the news media that appeared to reflect a breakdown in trust, communications and cooperation between members of the Board of Supervisors. The appearance of a dysfunctional Board of Supervisors was further compounded by unknown media leaks and comments voiced to the news media concerning various Board of Supervisors decisions. The concern was that a dysfunctional elected Board of Supervisors was not in the best interest of those citizens who had placed their trust in their elected representatives. Public confidence in the effectiveness of the Board of Supervisors can be eroded by a breakdown in trust, communications, cooperation and improper or unlawful conduct by the Board of Supervisors as a whole or by any of its members acting alone. Conversely, information about the Board of Supervisors based on conjecture, unfounded information based on rumor or innuendo can also present an image of dysfunction not based on fact. Penal Code 925 states “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operation, accounts, and records of the officers, department, or function of the county including those operations, accounts and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex- officio capacity as officers of the district.” The duty of the Grand Jury is to assist the citizens of San Bernardino County to determine the issues within the Board of Supervisors that may be causing the dysfunctional public perception and recommend the appropriate corrective action if needed. The method that appeared to be the best alternative to ascertain the issues of the adverse dysfunctional perception was to question each Supervisor separately. A series of questions were formulated which were similar in nature yet geared to each Supervisor’s district and background. The questions were structured with the purpose of determining what, if any, issues existed that were causing the dysfunction, and to bring these concerns to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. The questions were also constructed in a manner that would create a sense in each Supervisors mind that there was a need to stop the discord and resolve the issues between Supervisors for the best interest of the citizens of their respective districts. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 5 The second purpose for the questioning of each Supervisor was to determine if in fact the issue of dysfunction was based on erroneous information. It should be noted that during the preliminary process of interviewing each Supervisor a problem developed that although each Supervisor had a great deal of important concerns in their respective districts, four of the five Supervisors understood the importance of the Grand Jury investigation and made time available in their respective calendars to appear before the Grand Jury. Several attempts were made to schedule an appointment for the appearance of the former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Two appointments scheduled before the Grand Jury were cancelled at the last moment by the former Chairman. The former Chairman gave no explanation why he was not able or willing to appear before the Grand Jury. The former Chairman was subsequently elected as the Assessor and no further attempts were made to interview him by this committee. The newly elected Supervisor was interviewed on April 19, 2007. Some of the areas covered in the respective interviews with each Supervisor were: 1. Former County Counsel sudden retirement 2. Appointment of Interim County Counsel 3. Colonies Partners Limited, L. P. settlement 4. Gumport Report concerning Maranatha Jail property purchase 5. Media leaks 6. Partisan Politics 7. Dysfunctional relationships between Supervisors FINDINGS It is important to preface the findings in this report by making the following remarks as they relate to the operations and functioning of San Bernardino County government. It is important to remember that it is the people of the County who combine their pennies, nickels and dollars through various means into one County fund. The people then elect representatives ( in this case a Supervisor) to administer the funds and provide services in the best interest of the people. The people place their trust in their elected representatives to work together and make those decisions, which may not be popular or accepted by all of the people, but are made in their best interest. 1. The available information determined that the decision to retire was voluntarily made by the former County Counsel. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 6 The available information did reveal that a few days prior to the resignation the former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors had berated the County Counsel in an open workshop meeting, concerning the County Counsel's failure to follow Board direction and also made comments to the effect that outside use of legal counsel was being considered. The inability to satisfy each Supervisor’s needs and the discord between Supervisors was one of the deciding factors leading to the decision to retire by the County Counsel. 2. The former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors recommended and Supervisors approved of an Interim County Counsel, which was a proper procedure under County Charter: Article 2, Section 7, which states, " Any vacancy in a County office other than that of supervisor, shall be filled by the Board of Supervisors by appointment for the unexpired term." There was a concern as to the Supervisors’ decision to bypass the Assistant County Counsel and the effect that the decision would have on the Colonies Partners Limited pending litigations by bringing in an Interim County Counsel with questionable knowledge of the critical litigation issues. There is no requirement in a County appointed position that the assistant to that department head automatically become the head or interim of the department. This concern became a moot issue when the Board of Supervisors disregarded the expenditure of County funds already spent on outside legal representation, all legal counsel advice and settled the suit in favor of Colonies Partners Limited, L. P. 3. The available information at this time supports the premise that the Board of Supervisors’ monetary settlement in favor of the Colonies Partners Limited, L. P. was a decision made by three of the five Supervisors after consideration of the available alternatives. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to make the final decision on this civil lawsuit. The Board of Supervisors can consider, but were not required to follow, legal advice in this civil matter. 4. The purchase of the Maranatha jail facility and the subsequent Gumport report has been reviewed and disclosed no violations of law. The overall examination of the issues involved with the Maranatha facility purchase and information contained in the Gumport report did result in some positive actions by the Board of Supervisors. The first action was to renegotiate the Platinum Advisory contract to allow the CAO to terminate the contract at any time. There was also a reporting requirement to the County by the Platinum lobby contract when an issue of possible conflict arose. The lobbyist, who was a central issue in the Gumport report, although still employed by Platinum, is not representing San Bernardino County. A second positive result was the acquiring of a 700- bed jail 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 7 facility needed by the Sheriff. The facility was placed into service in a relatively short time and at a substantially reduced cost considering the cost to build a new jail facility. New additions to the facility are in the planning stages. 5. The area concerning release of confidential information to the news media was reviewed, however the person or persons responsible for the releases were not ascertained. The available information does support the premise that the discord between members of the Board of Supervisors may have contributed to the release of confidential information. 6. Partisan politics in County government, although not legally allowed, cannot be proven to exist or discounted. 7. The major area of concern was the dysfunctional display of interaction by some members at Board of Supervisor meetings, negative comments that made their way into the news media and release of confidential information with the intent to place another in a negative position. These actions were clearly not in the best interest of the citizens of the County. One of the reasons for the dysfunction of the Board was the failure of some members to place their personal feelings aside when debating an issue and the failure to recognize that others may not view the issue in the same way. The failure to resolve these long- standing differences further added to the dysfunctional perception of the Board. When the available information is viewed in totality the blame for allowing the dysfunctional operation of the Board of Supervisors lies squarely on the shoulder of the former Chairman of the Board who was, at the time, the elected leader. The leadership did not take the necessary steps to resolve the issues that were the source of conflict between Board members. The remaining Board of Supervisors also share in the blame for the dysfunctional operation due to their failure to take a leadership role in the conflict when the former Chairman did not take action to defuse or resolve the dysfunctional operation. As a result of the overall inaction by the Board of Supervisors there was a continuing failure of cooperation, trust and communication between Supervisors; thus the dysfunctional perception. This perception continued until there was a change in the Chairman of the Board leadership in 2007. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 8 COMMENDATION The present Board of Supervisors, despite differences of opinion that may arise on County matters, appears to be functioning as a cohesive unit of County government for the benefit of the people. Credit for this positive change appears to be the new leadership and the manner in which he is able to listen and communicate with Board members. The positive change is also a credit to the cooperation exhibited by all Board members. The vast reduction in the amount of negative press by the news media concerning the Board of Supervisors is also a credit to them. The Board of Supervisors is also positively credited with the implementation of the new COUNTY VISION site on the County website, which will open up the avenues of information and may reduce the distrust of county government due to the lack of information. The commendation to the Board of Supervisors is meant to be construed as a reminder that they are the elected representatives of the people, charged to act in the best interest of the citizens in their respective districts, and a dysfunctional Board of Supervisors is not in the best interest of the citizens of San Bernardino County. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 9 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BACKGROUND The County Administrative Officer ( CAO) is appointed by, and reports directly to, the Board of Supervisors. The CAO oversees the operations of County departments and assists in the coordination of activities of departments headed by elected officials. FINDINGS The CAO is responsible for the “ Service First” workshop conducted for all employees of the County. “ Service First” is a countywide customer service improvement program. The CAO believes this program has improved the workplace of the County. The “ Service First” ideals have now been incorporated into the work performance evaluation process. A background check for all employees is needed to insure the safety and integrity of the County and its employees. A background check policy was to be presented to the Board of Supervisors by January 2007. Every department is required to submit a Business Plan to the CAO. The department must adhere to those plans once they are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 04 CONTINUE THE “ SERVICE FIRST” WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS FOR ALL NEW EMPLOYEES. 07- 05 TO INSURE THE SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF THE COUNTY, EVERY EMPLOYEE WHO RECEIVES A PAYMENT FROM THE COUNTY BE REQUIRED TO PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK, INCLUDING PUBLIC OFFICE APPOINTEES AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STAFF. 07- 06 THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE BUSINESS PLANS OF ALL DEPARTMENTS. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 10 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The Grand Jury investigated the Human Resources Department since it learned that the County Administrative Officer stated at a “ Service First” mandatory meeting that County employees will receive a timely and yearly Work Performance Evaluation ( WPE). The County Administrative Officer has set a goal of at least a 90% completion rate and in past Grand Jury documentation it was indicated that a “ Standard Background Check” would be implemented by January 2007. FINDINGS During a “ Service First” presentation it was stated that there were over 3,700 WPE’s which were clearly overdue. The current status now indicates that number at only 300– 400. In fact, some employees are on extended sick leave or may be off work for an extended period of time and, therefore, the department cannot complete the WPE. The goal of Human Resources, according to its Director, is to implement a “ Standard Background Check” by January 2007. Human Resources was waiting for the reorganization of the Board of Supervisors before presenting it for approval. Human Resources will now proceed with the movement of the “ Standard Background Check” policy to the County Administrative Officer, who supports it, and then to the five Board of Supervisor members for final approval. The Director of Human Resources stated that his intention was to be open to suggestions and new ways of doing things. The Director stated that the following new ordinances and policies ( personnel rules) have been implemented: a. Dress and Grooming Program b. Drug Testing, Alcohol Testing c. Revisions of the following: i. Employee Relations Ordinance ( bargaining units) ii. Personnel Rules county- wide 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 11 iii. Policy and Procedures Manual iv. “ Resource Newsletter” to all County employees RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 07 THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM THAT GIVES EACH COUNTY EMPLOYEE A YEARLY AND TIMELY WORK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ( WPE). 07- 08 THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CONTINUE TO MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO IMPLEMENT A “ STANDARD BACKGROUND CHECK” AND MOVE THE POLICY TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN A TIMELY MANNER. 07- 09 THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CONTINUE TO REVISE AND IMPLEMENT THE ( 1) STANDARDIZED DRESS AND GROOMING PROGRAM; ( 2) DRUG TESTING AND ALCOHOL TESTING; AND ( 3) THE REVISIONS OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS INDICATED ABOVE. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 12 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The Grand Jury’s review was to identify areas that the newly appointed Chief Information Officer may need to modify to improve overall operations of the Information Services Department ( ISD). ISD provides County service in five major areas: ( 1) Network Services, ( 2) Application Development and Support, ( 3) Information Technology Customer Service, ( 4) Technology Operations, and ( 5) Core and Security. In the past five years there have been two Grand Jury reviews of the Information Services Department. Recommendations concerned replacement and disposing, donation of old computers, and determining the cost benefit of having ISD service all County computers. The 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury commended the ISD for creation and implementation of the Grand Jury webpage. FINDINGS The Analog 800MHz radio communication support system and equipment in current use by most County law enforcement agencies, and various other County departments is over 15 years old. ISD is currently in the process of converting the internal operating system presently in use in the support system, handheld devices and car radios to a lower frequency within the 800 MHz Analog bandwidth system, due to extreme high volume usage in the 800 MHz bandwidth. In the future, it is going to become increasingly difficult to obtain replacement parts for the present analog system. ISD is reviewing the feasibility and cost factors associated with converting to a countywide digital communications system. Estimated cost to convert just the communications support infrastructure is $ 250 million and does not include the actual cost of digital radio units. The County currently has 4,970 County owned one- way pagers in use. The County also has 441 " Blackberry" and 69 " Goodlink" communication devices in use. The Blackberry and Goodlink devices provide a two- way improved communication link for County personnel. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 13 ISD is currently working on improving the functionality of the new Geographic Information System ( GIS). This system will provide improved aerial views of County properties when required by County departments. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 10 DETERMINE FEASIBILITY AND COST FACTORS TO IMPLEMENT A COUNTYWIDE DIGITAL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM. 07- 11 IMPLEMENT A DIALOG WITH CONCERNED DEPARTMENTS USING THE COUNTY ANALOG COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM TO DISCUSS ANALOG ISSUES, PREPARE A PLANNED COURSE OF ACTION AND DETERMINE AVAILABLE FUNDING RESOURCES TO CONVERT TO A COUNTYWIDE DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AT A FUTURE DATE. 07- 12 REVIEW THE CURRENT ONE- WAY PAGER, BLACKBERRY/ GOODLINK COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS TO DETERMINE NEED, USAGE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 14 PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL BACKGROUND The present Grand Jury looked at Animal Care and Control, regarding the 2004- 05 Grand Jury concerns on safety and security at the Devore Animal Shelter. The length of time an animal is held was also investigated. Animal Care and Control takes in over 12,000 animals a year. The shelter started in 1985 with 40 kennel runs, and currently has over 90 kennel runs. FINDINGS Animal Care and Control has installed high fences and security cameras at the Devore Animal Shelter. They presently have a full- time security guard. There have been no break- ins since security measures were implemented. The shelter has been painted, is clean and well organized. Animals are scanned for identification chips and photographed immediately upon arrival. Photos and other information are placed on the lost pet website: www. sbcounty. gov/ acc. Animals are held for a minimum of five days ( State law requires four days). When space is available, animals that are “ adoptable” are kept for a longer period or placed with a certified rescue group. A larger facility would allow animals to be held for a longer period for adoption. People/ families looking to adopt a pet view animals in their cages. There is insufficient space for interaction between animals and people/ families. A veterinarian comes to the shelter three times a week to check and treat animals on site. Multiple shelters in the Central Valley of San Bernardino County duplicated animal care, adoption procedures and veterinarian care. The County assists with spay/ neuter costs through a voucher program. COMMENDATION The Animal Shelter is located in a rural area; the security measures taken with higher fences, security cameras and a full- time security guard make the shelter a safer 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 15 place for staff and animals. The department and County are to be commended for implementing safety and security recommendations of the 2004- 05 Grand Jury. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 13 COMBINE THE EXISTING MULTIPLE ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL FACILITIES IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY INTO A LARGER REGIONAL FACILITY BY USING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS ( JPA) OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES INCLUDING THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO. 07- 14 EMPLOY A FULL- TIME VETERINARIAN TO PROVIDE CARE, SPAY AND NEUTERING AT A REGIONALIZED CONTROL CENTER. 07- 15 PROVIDE MORE SPACE IN AN ADOPTION CENTER WHERE PEOPLE/ FAMILIES CAN INTERACT WITH PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PETS. VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM BACKGROUND Among the services provided by the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health is the Vector Control Program of the Environmental Health Services Division. ( Vector has been defined as a carrier). Vector Control denotes control of vectors and vector- borne diseases by any insect or animal that could cause health hazards to humans or other animals. The Vector Control Program is both proactive and reactive. There are two components of the program important to the control of vectors and vector- borne diseases throughout the County. 1. The program has a comprehensive surveillance plan that routinely performs surveys of mosquito, rodent and tick populations. It further evaluates the prevalence of diseases such as West Nile, encephalitis, plague, Hantavirus, Lyme, and others. 2. The program also provides prompt response to County residents’ requests. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 16 Visits were made to Vector Control facilities to get an overview of the department. The Vector Control Program has an administrative office in the County Government Center and a field office on Fifth Street in San Bernardino. The field office is what drew our attention. FINDINGS The field office facility was designed to accommodate a staff of eight and currently serves a staff of 21. It is extremely crowded. A Capital Improvement Plan ( CIP) for a new facility has been prepared and is going through the process. A new site near freeway access would reduce unnecessary travel time. The department is adequately staffed with trained professionals supplemented with seasonal staff when needed. The seasonal staff mostly comes from colleges and universities. There is no plan to add more staff at this time. The 5,000 square foot building includes offices, laboratory, equipment storage, locker room with a changing area shared by men and women, conference room, indoor parking/ garage and supply storage. An additional 5,000 square foot of outdoor space is taken up by four Sea Train shipping containers; two are modified to accommodate offices and two for storage of chemicals and fuel. These containers are not compliant with the American Disabilities Act. On site is a chicken flock and hatchery tubs for mosquito fish. There is no space at this site for expansion of any kind. The construction of a new facility will allow for future expansion of the program and added staff to accommodate the expected population growth and to better respond to the concerns regarding vectors and vector- borne diseases from County residents. Testing is done in the field and in an onsite lab manned by the Vector Ecologist. Testing is also contracted out to University of California, Davis, and University of California, Riverside, facilities. The San Bernardino Vector Control lab is crowded. Sometimes lunches and lab specimens end up in the same refrigerator. There is an exit door in the lab going directly outside; this could compromise the integrity of the lab. The Vector Control Program includes County lands and West End cities served by Special Districts. Communication is good between public and private agencies, which results in no duplication of Vector Control services. State grants are available; some desert cities did apply for grants up to $ 20,000 each while others have not applied for grants. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 17 Vehicles and equipment are parked outside. Though there is an effort to put sensitive equipment indoors at night, there is not always room. Vandalism in the past has caused some loss of fuel and equipment. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 16 IMPLEMENT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ( CIP) IMMEDIATELY TO ACQUIRE A NEW CENTRALIZED SITE WITH FREEWAY ACCESS TO CUT DOWN ON TRAVEL TIME FROM THE FACILITY TO THE JOB SITE( S). 07- 17 THE FACILITY INCLUDE SEPARATE DRESSING ROOMS AND SHOWERS FOR MEN AND WOMEN STAFF. 07- 18 PROVIDE MORE SPACE FOR PERSONNEL, SPECIMENS, STORAGE AND SENSITIVE EQUIPMENT, IN THE LAB. 07- 19 IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH, THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE DESERT CITIES TO BECOME MORE ACTIVE IN VECTOR CONTROL ACTIVITIES TO SAFEGUARD THE CITIZENS BY APPLYING FOR AVAILABLE STATE GRANTS. 07- 20 SECURE INDOOR PARKING OF VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPRAYERS, AND OTHER EQUIPMENT. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 18 RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The Grand Jury decided to conduct a review of this newly created department, which was formerly a division within the Human Services Department. It was the Grand Jury’s understanding that the County Administrative Officer ( CAO) transferred the Risk Management Division to his direct supervision and upgraded it to departmental status. An interview with the department Director took place and the Grand Jury had an opportunity to ask questions and gain more understanding of its function. FINDINGS Risk Management was originally under the Human Resource’s Department. It is now a complete and separate department in the County under the CAO. This change afforded the Department more visibility in the County organization and allowed its director full access to the CAO in regard to its function as managing insurance agent for the County, managing claims for Worker’s Compensation and dealing with medical malpractice claims for Arrowhead Regional Medical Center ( ARMC) and third part tort claims against the County. The importance of the Risk Management Department’s upgrade and placement under the direct supervision of the CAO is recognized. The County’s liability and self-insured status, workman’s compensation claims and medical malpractice claims for ARMC are serious and grave issues for governmental entities. The department places strong emphasis on ergonomics in the workplaces of County employees. The Director has expanded the Risk Management website on the County Intranet. On this new site, there is a warning to County employees which states “ employees are under the watchful eye of a camera.” “ Background checks” of employees needs to be resolved. The Director stated that the CAO will move forward to set forth a clear policy that every County employee will have the standard background check. This new policy is to move forward to the Board of Supervisors ( BOS) forthwith. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 19 RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 21 RISK MANAGEMENT REMAIN A SEPARATE DEPARTMENT REPORTING DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. 07- 22 THE NEW RISK MANAGEMENT “ USER- FRIENDLY” WEBSITE FOR USE BY COUNTY EMPLOYEES BE MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED. 07- 23 EVERY COUNTY EMPLOYEE BE REQUIRED TO PASS A STANDARD BACKGROUND CHECK. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 20 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND During a Grand Jury investigation of a citizen complaint concerning a city’s use of environmental mitigation funds ( EMF), several areas of concern came to our attention. These concerns related to Solid Waste Management Memorandums of Understanding ( MOU’s) with various cities in which San Bernardino County landfills are located. FINDINGS The Solid Waste Management Division has entered into many MOU’s with various cities concerning landfills that are located within that city’s boundaries or sphere of influence. Each city is paid the following amounts: LANDFILL CITY RATE PER TON Mid Valley Fontana $ 2.69 Rialto $ 2.69 San Timoteo Redlands $ 1.00 Colton Colton $ 1.00 Victorville Victorville $ .50 Barstow Barstow $ .50 29 Palms 29 Palms $ .50 Landers Yucca Valley no fee Mid Valley pays tonnage rates more than five times greater than other landfills. These MOU’s provide for: 1. Distribution of money from the Environmental Mitigation Fund. 2. Eligibility for funding. 3. Criteria for funding. 4. Funding formula. 5. Payment method. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 21 6. The Nexus Test ( A project satisfies the “ Nexus Test” if the project’s primary purpose and effect is to alleviate or to reduce the magnitude or the significance of an adverse condition affecting the city. This adverse condition must result from the presence of the current and/ or expanded landfill). All monies from the EMF paid to a city must be used by that city relative to the criteria established under the “ Nexus Test”. All cities warrant that they will use fees only on projects that meet the “ Nexus Test”. The cities of Rialto and Fontana are presently each paid approximately $ 2 million per year. Rialto was prepaid $ 14 million in 1998 in order to build a new police station. That police station has never been built. Rialto has been prepaid for tonnage until approximately 2012. The MOU’s with all cities except Fontana and Rialto require that: 1. The city keeps records necessary to establish the use of EMF monies for five years after use. 2. All use of EMF monies is subject to audit by the County, as it deems necessary. If a city fails to satisfy the “ Nexus Test”, the funds are to be returned to the County for placement in the EMF until a project to use the funds meets the “ Nexus Test”. Solid Waste Management has never conducted or requested an audit, has no procedure for requesting an audit, and has no knowledge of whether any city is misusing EMF monies. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 24 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SET UP A PROCEDURE TO AUDIT THE USE OF EMF FUNDS. 07- 25 IF CITIES ARE NOT USING EMF FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE MOU, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUEST THAT THOSE FUNDS BE RETURNED TO THE COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE MOU. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 22 07- 26 IF FONTANA AND RIALTO CANNOT MEET THE “ NEXUS TEST”, THEN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT RENEGOTIATE THE TONNAGE RATES PAID TO FONTANA AND RIALTO IN LIEU OF REQUIRING THOSE CITIES TO MEET THE “ NEXUS TEST”. 07- 27 THE COUNTY COUNSEL’S OFFICE INCLUDE IN ALL ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION FUNDS MOU’S THE REQUIREMENT THAT EACH CITY KEEP RECORDS FOR FIVE YEARS AND THAT THE COUNTY CAN AUDIT THE EMF MONIES AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY. Audit/ fisca l COMMITTEE Back – Dennis Zimmerman, JoAnn Miller, Gary Moran Front – Thomas Ma, Ellen Miller- Chair, Jeanne Choisnet Not pictured – Marianne Della Marna 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 23 AUDIT/ FISCAL COMMITTEE The Audit/ Fiscal Committee reviewed the operations and functions of the following County departments: Assessor Auditor/ Controller- Recorder Public Guardian Treasurer/ Tax Collector The full committee was used for reviews and investigations of each of these departments. Also investigated was the Retirement System. Included in this report are the findings and recommendations of the Audit/ Fiscal Committee 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 24 COUNTY ASSESSOR BACKGROUND On January 7, 2007, a new County Assessor was sworn into office. The County Assessor is an elected official and constitutional officer charged by law with the responsibility of independent oversight and preparation of the annual local property assessments, from which tax funds are derived. Currently, there are 235 employees in the Assessor’s Office, of which 142 are located at the San Bernardino Office at 172 West Third Street. The remaining 93 are distributed throughout the nine ( 9) countywide district offices, where appraisers and their support staff are located. The mission statement of the Office of Assessor is to perform the following state mandated functions: 1. Locate, describe and identify ownership of all property within the county. 2. Establish a taxable value for all property subject to taxation. 3. List all taxable value on the assessment roll. 4. Apply all legal exemptions. On March 27, 2007, an interview with the Assessor and five staff members was conducted. A guided tour of the Assessor’s main office was conducted after the interview. FINDINGS The newly elected Assessor has made personnel changes in his staff structure and has started a review of the Assessor’s operations in preparation to formulate a Business Plan. The Assessor is also in the process of requesting funds from the Board of Supervisors to remodel the three floors occupied by Assessor personnel. The Assessor is in the process of converting certain hard copy paper files to a digital format. The intent is to save space, increase safety and secure all records. The Assessor has reclassified some staff positions to unclassified status, which will afford him the means to accomplish future goals for the office. The reclassification was made with the concurrence of the affected staff personnel. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 25 The lack of a formal structured training program for such positions as Appraiser has been identified as a need for the Assessor’s future plans. At present, a new Appraiser is assigned to one of nine district offices and trained by staff Appraisers from that office. Training information imparted to trainees may not be consistent in offices throughout the County. A tour of the facility on the third, fourth and fifth floors revealed a need to remodel, repair, upgrade and/ or replace various items in each of the three floors. The current Assessor’s building was constructed in about 1958 and was originally the Treasurer’s Office. The original vault used to maintain County funds is still in place and used for file storage. Ceiling lighting in some offices consists of old florescent fixtures set into suspended ceiling tiles. Due to glare emitted by these lights on computer monitors, some of the fixtures have been turned off to facilitate the use of computers. There are certain areas where suspended ceiling tiles are missing, broken or stained. Work cubicles are very small, close together and most of the work area furniture is old “ Steel Case” type. The furniture in some areas was obtained from County storage where old, replaced County office equipment is discarded. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 28 THE ASSESSOR DEVELOP A FORMAL STRUCTURED TRAINING PROGRAM TO BE CONSISTENT IN ALL DISTRICT OFFICES. 07- 29 BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE ASSESSOR’S FACILITY, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAREFULLY REVIEW THE ASSESSOR’S OVERALL BUSINESS PLAN FOR 2007/ 2008 AND APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO RENOVATE THE ASSESSOR’S OFFICES, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS. POSITIVE APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED RENOVATION FUNDS WOULD BE A BENEFIT NOT ONLY TO THE ASSESSOR’S EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO TO THE COUNTY WITH THE IMPROVED PROCESSING OF VITAL PROPERTY INFORMATION. THIS APPROVAL SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED AND CONTINGENT UPON THE AVAILABLE FUNDS AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. complaints COMMITTEE Back – Roy Nierman, Ron Brooks- Chair, Burrel Woodring Front – Thomas Ma, Dennis Zimmerman, Elias Valdez 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 26 COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE The function of the Complaints Committee is to review all complaints received by the Grand Jury on an official complaint form. The forms are available by request or through the internet. Complaints may be referred by the District Attorney’s Office. The committee determines if the complaints are valid. If a complaint is valid and meets criteria, it is referred to the proper committee. The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury received 19 complaints during its term. Two of these complaints were referred to the Public and Support Services Committee, one complaint was referred to the Law and Justice Committee, and one complaint was referred to the Administrative Committee. Fifteen complaints resulted in no action taken by the Complaints Committee. Each complainant was informed of the action taken on their complaint. economic development COMMITTEE Back – Thomas Ma, William Howard- Chair, Victor Edinburgh Front – Ellen Miller, Kenneth Taylor, Carol Sharp Not pictured – Clyde Metzler 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 27 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Economic Development Committee was challenged to review and/ or investigate the following County departments as to their respective functions and procedures in the operations of their departments: Economic Development • Big Box Stores • City of Needles • County’s Five- Year Plan Redevelopment • Cedar Glen Project • San Sevaine Project Workforce Development Upon conclusion of the interviews and/ or investigations, there were no final reports from the subcommittees of Economic Development or Workforce Development. The efforts from the Redevelopment Subcommittee led to the following final report. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 28 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BACKGROUND The County Redevelopment Agency serves to improve economic opportunities and affordable living conditions within established redevelopment project areas in the unincorporated county, through the effective and efficient utilization of California redevelopment law, appropriate use of tax increment revenues and cooperative programs with other County agencies and communities. In 1995, the former Kaiser Steel Mill site and other blighted industrial properties located in the unincorporated area west of Fontana were incorporated into the San Sevaine Redevelopment Project Area. The major objectives of the project are to encourage private sector investment in the development and redevelopment of the area, by removing impediments to growth caused by ever- present toxic and hazardous waste, eliminating and/ or preventing the spread of blight and deterioration, and correcting infrastructure deficiencies. FINDINGS The County’s redevelopment project areas are very unique requiring staff to possess specialized knowledge and ability to perform the job. The existing positions require the knowledge of writing of comprehensive reports, act as a liaison, facilitate and conduct financial analyses, make public presentations and monitor legislation. The redevelopment of the San Sevaine Project is well planned and being implemented successfully. Past toxic and hazardous waste problems may be a detriment to future redevelopment. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 30 MONITOR THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SAN SEVAINE PROJECT AREAS, WHICH HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO POSSESS TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS WASTE. human services COMMITTEE Back – Ron Brooks, William Howard, Victor Edinburgh Front – Jeanne Choisnet, Roderic Moers- Chair, Carol Sharp Not pictured – Marianne Della Marna 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 29 HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE The Human Services Committee investigated the following departments and agencies: Aging and Adult Services • Ombudsman Program Department of Children’s Services • Foster Care • Independent Living Program Transitional Assistance • Food Stamp Improvement • Food Stamp Fraud The committee completed reports on the Ombudsman Program and Foster Care. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 30 DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM BACKGROUND Title VII Older Americans Act of 1965 is funded through the State of California and provides oversight assistance to residents in long- term nursing facilities and residential care homes in San Bernardino County. This oversight assistance is provided by trained Ombudsman volunteers who donate their time and service. Knowledge of the program and Ombudsman duties were known to two Grand Jurors. Their experience was helpful in assessing the program and promoted the investigation. FINDINGS There are currently 26 certified Ombudsmen. This figure fluctuates according to the turnover rate. The volunteers serve 58 skilled nursing facilities and 256 residential care homes. The confidentiality and privacy of the residents is protected by the Ombudsman Program. An average of 160 monthly complaints are handled by the program. The turnover rate of Ombudsmen is a concern. Due to the increased longevity of the older population, the assistance provided is becoming less adequate. Continued news coverage and other coverage would encourage a flow of volunteers. The Ombudsman volunteers are working without appropriate safety communication. A GPS system provided for the volunteers would give needed safety in the field. Communication between County and State officials is insufficient due to unanswered telephone calls, e- mails and letters. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 31 INCREASE MEDIA EXPOSURE TO REDUCE TURNOVER RATE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VOLUNTEER. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 31 07- 32 INSTALL GPS SYSTEMS IN ALL OMBUDSMAN CELL PHONES. 07- 33 INCREASE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN STATE AND COUNTY OFFICIALS TO ASSURE A CONTINUED AND SUCCESSFUL OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 32 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES FOSTER CARE BACKGROUND The Grand Jury looked into Children Services to see if safety and security were a priority for children and County workers. The Grand Jury found that children in Foster Care were visited on a regular schedule and reported as being visited in a timely manner. FINDINGS Social workers may use their own phone and/ or pager, or County issued phone and pager for communication when making visitations and doing fieldwork. Social workers are often in areas where communication is limited. GPS systems are not used in conjunction with phone use in the field and should be purchased for safety and communication with supervisors and co- workers and law enforcement. It was reported that the use of “ Safe Measures” by department supervisors has improved the reporting percentage of foster care children being seen in a timely manner. “ Safe Measures” provides real time information regarding current status of the department, region, unit and individual caseworker. Utilizing the “ Safe Measures” program makes it apparent that the reporting problems were in data entry rather than social workers not making contact with foster child. The statistical data of children being seen in a timely manner has improved from 65% to 93%. The current cost for “ Safe Measures” program is $ 64,000 a year. There is no cost in adding the Social Workers to the “ Safe Measures” program. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 34 PURCHASE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS ( GPS) FOR SOCIAL WORKERS’ AREA SO THAT THEIR LOCATION CAN BE TRACKED WHEN NEEDED OR ASSISTED BY OTHER STAFF OR LAW ENFORCEMENT IF IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION 07- 35 ADD SOCIAL WORKERS TO “ SAFE MEASURES” PROGRAM. law and justice COMMITTEE Back – Dennis Zimmerman, Kenneth Taylor Center – Roy Nierman, Gary Moran, Burrel Woodring- Chair Front – JoAnn Miller, Elias Valdez, Lois Long 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 33 LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE The Law and Justice Committee had the responsibility for investigating the following County departments: Probation Public Defender Sheriff- Coroner The authority for the investigation of these departments is found in the California Penal Code and Government Code. Final reports and recommendations were made on the following offices and facilities: Barstow Sheriff Station and Detention Facility Central Court Holding Facility Coroner ICE Unit at West Valley Detention Center Indigent Defense Contracts Indigent Defense Fee Collection Judicial Benefits Probation Department Public Defender Department Scientific Investigations Unit Sheriff’s Training Center/ Academy The Sheriff’s Inmate Welfare Trust Fund was investigated and was found to be operating properly and legally under the rules set forth by the Penal Code. The Board of Supervisors hired a new Public Defender during this Grand Jury’s term of office. Investigations showed that she is reorganizing this department and introducing some significant cost- saving programs. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 34 INDIGENT DEFENSE CONTRACTS BACKGROUND The San Bernardino Superior Court is no longer a County department. This Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations to the Court or the Judges, who are State employees. The Superior Court, however, still sets the requirements for contract attorneys and awards the contracts for all adult indigent defense attorneys. These contracts are paid with County funds. Juvenile contracts are paid with funds from the State. The Superior Court, which is a state agency, continues to award the juvenile indigent attorney contracts. FINDINGS A state agency is awarding county contracts and spending County funds for the representation of indigent defendants by indigent contract defense attorneys. A possible conflict exists when defense attorneys appear before judges who award the indigent fee contracts. Contract attorneys who appear before those judges can be intimidated. The San Bernardino Superior Court contract only requires that the contracting attorney have the following legal qualifications: 1. Licensed to practice law in the State of California. 2. The attorney has malpractice insurance. The contracting attorney determines which sub- contract attorney would actually represent the defendant in each case. There is no requirement for specific experience levels, capabilities or qualifications of a sub- contract attorney to handle different types of crimes or cases ( excluding life without possibility of parole or death penalty cases). At present, there were only four bidders on the four County contracts which are awarded to contract attorneys every three years. Those bids are as follows: 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 35 CONTRACT AREA MISD. COST FELONY COST North Desert ( Victorville/ Barstow) $ 375 $ 1045 East Valley ( Central/ Fontana) $ 375 $ 975 West Valley ( Chino/ Rancho) $ 400 $ 975 East Desert ( Joshua Tree) $ 375 $ 1150 In the Central Division ( San Bernardino), there were 1,295 felony appointments to the contract attorneys during the year 2006. There are approximately 15 sub-contract attorneys who handle the cases in the Central Division. The charge per defendant is so low Orange County and Los Angeles County attorneys do not bid on the San Bernardino indigent defense attorney contracts. Since the appointment of a new Public Defender in 2006, there has been a nine percent drop in the number of felony appointments and a 15 percent drop in the number of misdemeanor appointments to contract attorneys. This has reduced the income of contract attorneys and has saved the County over $ 700,000.00. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 36 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO NEGOTIATE AND AWARD THE CONTRACTS WITH INDIGENT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. 07- 37 THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SET STANDARDS TO INSURE THAT EACH CONTRACTING ATTORNEY AND SUB- CONTRACTING ATTORNEY IS QUALIFIED TO HANDLE THE TYPE OF CASE HE/ SHE IS APPOINTED TO DEFEND. 07- 38 THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DESIGNATE A COUNTY DEPARTMENT, POSSIBLY TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR, TO HANDLE ALL ACCOUNTINGS AND PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTING ATTORNEYS. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 36 INDIGENT DEFENSE FEE COLLECTION BACKGROUND The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury recommended ( recommendation # 06- 41) that the Treasurer/ Tax Collector proceed with the indigent defense fees collection program. This program was to allow the County to recover attorney fees from those defendants who are not totally indigent. The program was discontinued by the then Presiding Judge. The Treasurer/ Tax Collector, in their response (# 06- 41), indicated that “ The County lost $ 2 million of possible reimbursement for public defender fees due to Courts not ordering fees as recommended”. FINDINGS In 2006 the Public Defender and contract attorneys were appointed on the following criminal cases: Agency Misdemeanor Felony Public Defender 31,338 16,254 Contract Attorneys 2,709 3,808 A pilot program for the collection of indigent defense fees is being developed by the Treasurer/ Tax Collector and the Court in the Rancho Courthouse. It is anticipated that this pilot program will be instituted throughout the County after a scheduled meeting with the presiding judge and approval from the judges’ executive committee. The Treasurer/ Tax Collector will then be designated as the “ Financial Officer” per P. C. 987.81 to collect indigent defense attorney fees. The pilot program will provide for the court at the arraignment procedure to present to defendant, among other legal notices, a portion advising the process for reimbursement of attorney fees. ( This form is still in the development process). The Treasurer/ Tax Collector will then process the collection of appropriate reimbursement fees from those defendants who have been determined to be able to pay for any and/ or all attorney fees. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 37 The Court will be ordering defendants to pay “ the maximum amount” of attorney fees subject to modification by the “ Financial Officer” based on the defendant’s ability to pay. The “ maximum amount” presently set by the Court is $ 500 for misdemeanors and $ 800 for felonies. Present indigent defense contracts between the Court and contract attorneys provide for the following pay schedule to the contract attorney: Misdemeanors $ 375.00 to $ 400.00 Felonies $ 975.00 to $ 1150.00 The indigent defense reimbursement program may include both misdemeanor cases and cases in which the defendant is not convicted of a crime or may be phased, one at a time, into the program. There is no procedure presently in effect for defendants appearing by video arraignment to be ordered to “ Central Collections”. The Public Defender has indicated there may be 10,000 arraignments by video in 2008. The indigent defense reimbursement program will not work without the total cooperation of all judges who handle criminal cases. The Treasurer/ Tax Collector has indicated judges who are overloaded with cases often forget to order attorney fees. The County lost $ 2 million in 2006 because of the Court’s failure to order attorney fees. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 39 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR IMPLEMENT THE INDIGENT DEFENSE FEE COLLECTION PROGRAM COUNTYWIDE. 07- 40 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE COURT TO REQUIRE THE COURT BAILIFF TO HAND EACH DEFENDANT A FINANCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND A LETTER FROM “ CENTRAL COLLECTIONS” NOTIFYING THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS AND ORDERING THEM TO APPEAR IN 20 DAYS TO CENTRAL COLLECTIONS. 07- 41 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE COURT TO INCREASE THE “ MAXIMUM ATTORNEY FEES” TO: MISDEMEANORS $ 500.00 FELONIES $ 1200.00 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 38 07- 42 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE COURT TO ESTABLISH ATTORNEY FEE REIMBURSEMENT IN MISDEMEANOR CASES AND IN CASES IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ACQUITTED. 07- 43 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT TO INSURE VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT DEFENDANTS BE INCLUDED IN THE INDIGENT DEFENSE COLLECTION PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF THE VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT. 07- 44 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR WORK WITH THE COURT TO MODIFY THE ARRAIGNMENT DOCKET SHEET TO REMIND JUDGES TO INCLUDE THE ORDERING OF ATTORNEY FEES IN INDIGENT MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY CASES. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 39 JUDICIAL BENEFITS BACKGROUND In 1992 Municipal and Justice Courts in the County were merged. In recognition of the merger, the Board of Supervisors equalized the benefits paid to those County Judges. In 1997, a second consolidation took place when the State of California enacted the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 ( SB 223) which abolished the Municipal Courts and declared the Municipal Court Judges were, henceforth, Superior Court Judges. This act also provided that all Judges are employees of the State of California and no longer County employees. In 2000, The San Bernardino Board of Supervisors enacted Resolution 2000- 190 that allocated $ 1.3 million to the Court for costs associated with locally authorized judicial benefits for “ eligible” judges, and there were 63 “ eligible” judges at that time. The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury questioned why the Board of Supervisors continued to authorize the payment of $ 19,371.56 per year to every San Bernardino County Judge since they were now employees of the State of California. FINDINGS Superior Court Judges are State employees and their salary is set by the State legislature and paid by the State of California ( AB 223, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997). Superior Court Judges are appointed by the Governor of California or elected by the residents of the County. The Governor can appoint persons to the San Bernardino Superior Court who are not residents of the County. County “ judicial benefits” are not a major factor in the acceptance of an appointment to a judgeship. Many counties offer no judicial benefits. The County Counsel in two separate legal opinions, one on September 22, 2000, and one on April 21, 2003, questioned whether judges can legally participate in County sponsored benefit programs. In 2000, 63 “ eligible” judges were collecting County benefits. Today, 83 “ eligible” judges receive County benefits of $ 19,700 per year. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 40 There are presently five judicial vacancies on the San Bernardino County judicial bench and the State of California has authorized 16 additional judicial positions for the County of San Bernardino. In 1997, the salary of a Superior Court Judge was $ 108,000. Today, the salary of a Superior Court Judge is $ 171,000. This is a 63% increase. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury reported on what other Southern California counties paid judges as judicial benefits. Their findings were as follows: • Alameda o Paid $ 1,350 per judge annually for a cafeteria plan. A total cost of $ 150,000 for 69 judges. • Fresno o Paid $ 1,121.42 per judge for health insurance and $ 92.56 for a life insurance policy • Riverside o Paid a car allowance, deferred compensation and life insurance policy. • San Diego o Paid no county benefits for 128 judges. • Santa Barbara o Paid no county benefits for 19 judges. • Santa Clara o Paid for a $ 25,000 life insurance policy for 79 judges. • San Bernardino o Paid county benefits of $ 19,371.56 per judge. A total of $ 1,607,839 for 83 judges. The current San Bernardino County benefit is $ 19,700 per judge. A total of $ 1,635,100 for 83 judges. An expected total of $ 1,950,300 for 99 judges. ( San Bernardino is authorized 16 additional judges). The cost of living in San Bernardino County is less than many other Southern California counties. For example, the median home prices are substantially less. In March 2007, the median home prices in Southern California counties were as follows: • Los Angeles $ 540,000 • Orange $ 629,000 • Riverside $ 420,000 • San Diego $ 490,000 • Ventura $ 566,750 • San Bernardino $ 369,000 • So. California $ 505,000 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 41 The median home prices in San Bernardino County are the lowest in Southern California, yet San Bernardino County pays substantially more in judicial benefits than other Southern California counties. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 45 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCONTINUE OR REDUCE THE JUDICIAL BENEFITS PAID TO PRESENTLY APPOINTED OR ELECTED SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES. 07- 46 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOT PAY ANY JUDICIAL BENEFITS TO ANY NEW JUDGE APPOINTED OR NEWLY ELECTED AFTER JULY 1, 2007. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 42 PROBATION DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The San Bernardino County Probation Department handles 17,000 to 18,000 adult probationers with approximately 120 to 130 Deputy Probation Officers. The Probation Officer average caseload is 140 probationers. A Probation Department memorandum dated September 18, 2006, indicated the San Bernardino County Probation Department currently prepares 6,000 pre- sentence probation reports each year for the San Bernardino Superior Court, whereas, Orange County Probation Department prepares approximately 800 pre- sentence probation reports per year. FINDINGS The vast majority of these pre- sentence probation reports ( hereafter referred to as “ probation reports”) concern cases in which the defendant, the defense attorney, the District Attorney and the Court have accepted a negotiated plea agreement. These negotiated plea agreements typically resolve most, if not all, issues concerning length of jail sentence, restitution, fines and terms of probation, prior to the matter being referred to the Probation Department for a pre- sentence report. The probation reports are labor intensive. Each report requires 9- 12 hours to complete ( 3 to 4 reports per deputy per week). Presently 25 Deputy Probation Officers spend their entire time writing pre- sentence probation reports. If 3,000 less probation reports were written per year, 14 Probation Officer IIs and one Supervising Probation Officer could be reassigned to supervision of high risk probationers or to other areas where gaps in service exist. It normally takes four weeks to complete a probation report and a defendant typically waits in county jail for an additional four weeks after accepting a negotiated plea agreement before being transported by the Sheriff's Department back to Court for sentencing. P. C. 1203( 4) provides that the probation report may be waived by a stipulation of the prosecuting and defense attorneys with the consent of the Court. Riverside County Adult Probation Department writes approximately 2,000 pre-sentence probation reports each year and only writes reports on the following: 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 43 1. Cases that go to trial ( 90% of all pre- sentence probation reports) 2. Cases in which there is a “ Lid” on sentencing, i. e. agreement of not more than a set number of years. 3. Cases in which there is no agreement by the District Attorney’s Office and the plea is offered by the Court. There are no pre- sentence probation reports written on any negotiated pleas other than those listed above. If there is a negotiated plea in Riverside Court, the Court does a sentencing of the defendant, whether or not a victim is available to testify. P. C. 1192.6 requires the prosecuting attorney to relay to the Court the circumstances of the offense, the medical expense involved, whether there are prior felonies involved, and the damages to the victim. Riverside Court will sentence the defendant immediately and will order restitution as determined by Financial Services. Financial Services is a department working for the Court, but funded by Riverside County. It has the responsibility to calculate and collect restitution. If defendants are not in custody they are directed to go to Financial Services immediately. If the defendant is in custody, Financial Services will contact them at the jail. Financial Services personnel get the police report which has the address and name of the victim. ( Victim names are not given in sex crime cases). Financial Services then contacts the victim to determine damages, injuries, medical expense and the amount of reimbursement to be made to the victim. Financial Services then determines the amount of the restitution and it becomes a part of the court order. In many instances the Victim/ Witness personnel in the District Attorney’s Office can contact the victim to determine the restitution required to be made to the victim. The District Attorney’s Office can also run a Criminal Information Identification ( CII) report to determine the defendant’s criminal background. This is normally done before the preliminary hearing and is available to the Judge for sentencing if a negotiated plea agreement is reached. The San Bernardino District Attorney’s Victim/ Witness Program has just requested grant money under P. C. 1382.5 of $ 966,813.00. The San Bernardino Probation Department has suggested the elimination of pre-sentence probation reports on negotiated pleas of: 1. Petty theft with a prior. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 44 2. Vehicle theft where the vehicle is returned with minor damage. 3. Low level burglary. 4. Victimless crimes. 5. Drug cases without a victim. 6. Other low level crimes. By waiving probation reports on these negotiated pleas, 14 Deputy Probation Officers could be assigned elsewhere to provide greater supervision to high risk offenders that have committed a violent crime or who have a high potential for violating probation. The Public Defender’s office, the District Attorney’s office, the Probation Department and the San Bernardino Superior Court have agreed to waive pre- sentence probation reports for drug crimes without a victim. This went into effect March 1, 2007. It is anticipated this will eliminate approximately 1,000 probation reports and will free up approximately five Deputy Probation Officer IIs to perform other duties. The District Attorney’s office has indicated that contacting the victims to determine restitution on damages to victims is the responsibility of the Probation Department. They also indicated that the Probation Department should investigate the criminal background of defendants and not the District Attorney’s office. Their primary objection was that this is the way they have done it in the past and they were not “ comfortable in waiving Probation reports on any negotiated pleas other than non-violent drug cases.” The Public Defender’s office and the Probation Department encourage waiving probation reports on other low- level crimes as Orange County and Riverside County have done. The San Bernardino Superior Court has indicated that if the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney waive a probation report, they will consent to the waiver. If there was a waiver of probation reports for other low level crimes as listed above, it would eliminate an additional 1,800 probation reports and free up an additional nine Deputy Probation Officer IIs. It is anticipated 1,800 fewer probation reports would have the following effects: 1. Reduce the review of 1,800 probation reports by the defense attorney, the prosecuting attorney and the Judge. 2. Not tying up the following personnel in 1,800 additional court hearings: a. Judge b. Prosecuting attorney 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 45 c. Defense attorney d. Bailiff e. Court reporter f. Court clerk 3. County jail inmates could be released on probation or sentenced to state prison four weeks earlier. ( No need to return to court four weeks later for sentencing.) 4. Fewer inmate movements from county jail to Court for in- custody defendants. 5. Reduce by 1,800 the number of Court calendared items which will allow the Court to proceed with other hearings. Freeing up nine ( 9) additional Deputy Probation Officer IIs and one ( 1) Supervising Probation Officer, would save the County over $ 1,000,000 per year in salaries used solely to write probation reports. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 47 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE WAIVE PRE- SENTENCE PROBATION REPORTS ON NEGOTIATED PLEAS OF THE FOLLOWING CRIMES: a. PETTY THEFT WITH A PRIOR. b. VEHICLE THEFT WHERE THE VEHICLE IS RETURNED WITH MINOR DAMAGE. c. LOW LEVEL BURGLARY. d. VICTIMLESS CRIMES. e. DRUG CASES WITHOUT A VICTIM. f. OTHER LOW LEVEL CRIMES. 07- 48 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S VICTIM/ WITNESS PERSONNEL CONTACT VICTIMS TO DETERMINE REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES AND RESTITUTION WHEN POSSIBLE. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 46 07- 49 THE TREASURER/ TAX COLLECTOR ESTABLISH A FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION TO WORK WITH THE COURT TO CALCULATE AND COLLECT RESTITUTION. 07- 50 THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT REASSIGN DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICERS FREED UP AS A RESULT OF FEWER PROBATION REPORTS, TO PROVIDE GREATER SUPERVISION OF HIGH RISK OFFENDERS. ANY MONEY SAVED BY NOT HIRING DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICERS COULD BE USED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OR INCREASE PERSONNEL IN THE VICTIM- WITNESS PROGRAM. 07- 51 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER REQUEST THAT DEFENDANTS IN NEGOTIATED PLEAS BE SENTENCED IMMEDIATELY IN ORDER TO FREE UP JAIL SPACE AND COURT PERSONNEL. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 47 PUBLIC DEFENDER BACKGROUND The Constitution provides that all persons accused of a crime be defended. Those defendants who do not have the financial means to hire an attorney will be assigned one by the court. The County Public Defender's ( P. D.) office has the responsibility of representing indigent clients. It provides defense services to both adults and juveniles accused of felonies, misdemeanors, and violations of probation. FINDINGS The P. D. has started a comprehensive training program. The office is now representing defendants from arraignment to sentencing. The P. D. has reduced the number of cases the public defender has been relieved from representing a defendant because of a conflict of interest. The P. D. has reduced the number of Marsden hearings by 95%. A Marsden hearing is a hearing granted by the Court when a defendant requests that the attorney appointed to represent him or her be removed and another attorney ( normally a private attorney) be appointed to represent him or her. The P. D. has recommended waiving pre- sentence probation reports on some negotiated plea cases that have the potential to free up several probation officers to perform other tasks. The P. D.’ s Office currently has 111 Deputy Public Defender positions authorized. Five of those positions are unfunded and three positions are vacant. The P. D. handled over 52,723 cases in 2006, for an average of 512 cases per attorney ( 52,723 cases divided by 103 attorneys = 512). The P. D. estimates they will handle over 65,000 cases in 2008 for an average caseload of 585 cases per attorney ( 65,000 cases divided by 111 attorneys = 585). The Department of Justice's National Advisory Commission adopted a caseload standard of “ no more than 150 assigned felonies per attorney per year, or no more than 400 assigned misdemeanors per attorney per year, or no more than 242 assigned juvenile cases per attorney per year.” The 2006 caseloads of area public defender’s offices are as follows: 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 48 County Felony Juvenile Misd. Total Cases # of Atty’s Avg Caseload Per Atty Budget Cost per Defendant San Bernardino 16,254 5,131 31,338 52,723 103 512 $ 28,862,282 $ 547 Orange 77,500 213 360 $ 54,865,528 $ 708 Riverside ( 2004/ 2005) 14,344 3,100 17,959 35,403 131 270 $ 26,842,148 $ 758 The P. D. is now present for all video arraignments at Adelanto and West Valley Detention Centers. It is estimated there will be 10,000 video arraignments per year in 2008. As a result of the P. D. having fewer conflict cases and fewer Marsden hearings granted, there has been a nine percent decrease in contract attorney felony cases and a 15 percent decrease in misdemeanor cases. The contract attorneys received average fees of $ 975 per defendant. The P. D. cost per defendant is $ 547. The reduction in contract attorney cases has saved the County over $ 700,000. Although the Public Defender’s office received increased staffing in 2006- 2007, the increased number of countywide criminal filings, the decrease in declared conflicts and decreased Marsden hearings has resulted in increasing the P. D. caseload rather than lessening it. The Public Defender’s Office has need for 18 additional Deputy Public Defender positions ( an increase to 129 positions). The average caseload would be 504 cases per attorney ( 65,000 anticipated cases divided by 129 attorneys = 504) which is still higher than the attorney caseload of Riverside County or Orange County. In 2006, the average caseload per Public Defender investigator was: COUNTY NUMBER OF INVESTIGATORS TOTAL CASES CASES PER INVESTIGATOR Orange 79 77,500 981 Riverside 39 35,403 908 San Bernardino 22 52,723 2,396 The Public Defender’s office does not have a comprehensive case management system. This system would enable attorneys to access files from the office or the courtroom. It would save clerical staff time, incorporate updated technology and enable multi- department coordination to enhance motion writing, case organization, and staff efficiency. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 49 Because of the increase in caseload and the number of attorney positions, there is a need for eight office assistants, six supervising office assistants, six investigators, and one supervising investigator. Extremely high attorney caseloads, investigator caseloads, and staff caseloads cause high employee, investigator and attorney turnover which ultimately leads to increased recruitment and training costs. Although the Public Defender's office will increase its office space in San Bernardino with completion of the 303 building, there is still a shortage of office space in Victorville and Fontana. The Fontana office has 4,000 sq. ft. of space for 23 staff members. Victorville has 5,300 sq. ft. of space for 26 staff members. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 52 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE FUNDING FOR 18 ADDITIONAL DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND TWO SUPERVISING DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS. 07- 53 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE FUNDING FOR SIX INVESTIGATORS AND ONE SUPERVISING INVESTIGATOR. 07- 54 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE FUNDING FOR SIX SUPERVISING OFFICE ASSISTANTS AND EIGHT OFFICE ASSISTANT II’S. 07- 55 THE PUBLIC DEFENDER DEVELOP AND INITIATE A CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. 07- 56 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE IN VICTORVILLE AND IN FONTANA FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER USE. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 50 SHERIFF- CORONER BARSTOW SHERIFF’S STATION AND DETENTION FACILITY BACKGROUND The Barstow Sheriff’s Station was established in 1890. The present station ( a former Barstow City police office and jail) is the oldest in the County and has been in use since the early 1950’ s. The building also houses courtrooms and offices for the Superior Court. The jail and booking facility is used by the Sheriff’s Department, Barstow Police, California Highway Patrol, Burlington Northern Railway Detectives and, on occasion, Military Police Criminal Intelligence Division investigators from Fort Irwin and the Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base. Deputies from this station have patrol jurisdiction over 10,000 square miles, more than half of the total square miles of the County. This area includes Baker, Daggett, Hinkley, Lenwood, Ludlow, Newberry Springs, Sandy Valley, Yermo, Red Mountain and Trona. Station staffing consists of 71 personnel, including one captain, one lieutenant, five sergeants, four corporal/ detectives, six jail deputies, one secretary, three office specialists, five custody specialists, five custody specialist assistants, one automotive and five station officers. FINDINGS Prisoner meals are stored in a refrigerator prior to being heated and served. Food is transported from the Glen Helen jail. A staff of trustees maintains the station and jail. They have a separate dormitory that is too small for the number of inmates. When these trustees have visitation with their families, there is not a visitation room and they use a small, secured patio off the staff conference room. Inmates are generally held for 36 hours or less before being transported to Adelanto or West Valley facilities, unless they are to appear before the Barstow Superior 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 51 Court for arraignment. They are then transported and returned on the day of their next court appearance. Parking lot facilities are inadequate for Sheriff vehicles and most deputies and employees must park on unsecured streets. Evidence storage space is seriously inadequate. Firearms are not in lockers. Evidence workers have inadequate space and security in a 6’ x 6’ room. Drugs and cash are not kept permanently on site, but are periodically transported to the Criminal Services Unit in San Bernardino. Station ammunition is stored on shelves in a 4’ x 2’ hallway wall locker. The detectives’ office is only 16’ x 12’ and contains desks and files for the station’s several investigators. The adjacent interview room is a former closet and is used as a fingerprint room for applicants for various non- criminal permits. The station and jail’s air conditioning system is inadequate for the severe desert climate. Some holding cells in the women’s section are unusable due to chronic plumbing problems, and no fire suppression sprinklers were observed in the cell area or station proper. Communication between the jail and the adjacent courtrooms is outdated. It usually consists of necessary defendant paperwork being slid under a door from the court to the jail. Only one deputy is on jail duty per shift, with a Sheriff Correction Specialist. The deputy is responsible for jail security in transferring prisoners to court bailiffs. Adjacent to the facility is a small city- owned park, purchased from the County for $ 1 several years ago. It would be the most cost effective site if the Board of Supervisors ever considered enlarging the station. An evaluation should be done as the condition and age of the facility might necessitate building a new station at another location. Several new developments and industries, plus the proposed new Indian casino, are scheduled for the area. The Sheriff will then need to develop new staffing and strategies to maintain the high level of law enforcement that citizens now enjoy. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 57 REMODEL AND EXPAND THE EXISTING BARSTOW JAIL AND SHERIFF’S STATION USING THE VACANT CITY LAND NEXT TO THE FACILITY. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 52 07- 58 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZES A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO BUILD AND FINANCE A NEW STATION AND JAIL IN BARSTOW. 07- 59 THE SHERIFF EVALUATE STAFFING NEEDS FOR THE FACILITY IN BARSTOW. CENTRAL COURT HOLDING FACILITY BACKGROUND The Penal Code requires the Grand Jury investigate the conditions and management of County detention facilities. The Sheriff’s Central Court holding facility is located on the fourth floor of the San Bernardino County Central Courthouse. It is a temporary holding facility for people in custody who are awaiting court appearances. The facility is classified as a “ Class II Detention Facility” ( pending arraignment during trial and upon sentencing), as prescribed by Title 15 Minimum Jail Standards. Built in 1926, it was originally the only San Bernardino County Jail. The facility accommodates approximately 120- 200 inmates daily. Staff is comprised of six Deputy Sheriffs and one Sheriff Custody Specialist, who work Monday- Friday from 6: 00 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m. FINDINGS Inmates are in waist chains and leg irons when bussed daily from West Valley, Central and Adelanto detention facilities for their court appearances. They are transferred from the bus to a security elevator that only stops on the first and fourth floors. This elevator can only accommodate 3,000 pounds or 13 ( 1 deputy and 12 inmates per load) and is operated by an inmate trustee. After arriving at the fourth floor, the leg irons are removed and inmates are placed into separate juvenile, male and female holding cells. Males are further separated until their appearance in court. When their cases are called, they are transferred to the court annex, under guard, through different stairs and security doors. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 53 The holding area and cells are clean considering the age of the facility. It contains a small storeroom and small breakfast and lunch area for the guards. Exterminators are attempting to solve a recurring rodent and flea problem. The cooling system is adequate. There are 24 unoperable floor drains. The Fire Suppression Pre- Plan Protocol and Emergency Evacuation Plan, coordinated with the San Bernardino City Fire Department, is updated every two years. According to this plan, there are several exits in and out of holding cells. The plan calls for the majority of inmates to be evacuated through the kitchen stairwell, the stairway behind Departments S- 17 and S- 18, and the stairway behind Department S- 21, plus the Court Annex passageway. It does not explain the evacuation plan if the Court Annex exit is destroyed or closed due to an emergency, or the electricity to the elevators is disrupted. Considering the age of the facility and the plans to build a new courthouse, major expenditures are not financially feasible. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 60 THE PLUMBING AND DRAIN PROBLEMS IN THE CENTRAL COURTHOUSE HOLDING FACILITY NEED TO BE REPAIRED. 07- 61 UPDATE THE FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN AND MODIFY THE EVACUATION PLAN FOR THE COURTHOUSE HOLDING FACILITY. CORONER DIVISION BACKGROUND The 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury investigated the Coroner’s facility. The report found the facility in unacceptable condition. Bodies were stacked three or four high and an extremely bad odor existed throughout the facility, originally built in 1986. Recommendations were made to increase the size of the Coroner’s Facility, remodel it entirely and add additional refrigeration capacity, as well as the additional staff to the Coroner’s office. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 54 FINDINGS Recently, the Board of Supervisors assigned the Coroner’s duties to the Sheriff’s Department. In November 2006 remodeling was begun on the entire Coroner’s Facility, including the installation of a new roof. A new and larger refrigeration/ freezer system has been installed in addition to the existing refrigeration system. Facility upgrades include the autopsy stations, anthropology room and a facility for pathologists. When finished, the new morgue will hold approximately 170 bodies. Since the merger, the Board of Supervisors has approved 19 new staff positions and when filled, the office will have 51 full- time positions. The Sheriff is recruiting RN’s, ex- officers and paramedics, embalmers, and fire personnel. They will receive four months departmental training and two weeks specialized training. When fully staffed, the Coroner’s Office will have three full- time and three part- time pathologists. Additional investigators are needed to identify a backlog of unidentified persons. The remodeling of the Coroner’s Facility is a four- part process. The Grand Jury’s visit on April 12, 2007, found stage one of the remodeling almost complete. Final completion is scheduled for September 2007. The Sheriff’s Office requested the Board of Supervisors provide an additional Coroner’s facility in the high desert area. This request was approved and an Apple Valley mortuary was obtained and is being remodeled. The Apple Valley facility is a lease with option to buy. The additional facility has given the County two Coroner’s facilities to handle the growing population of San Bernardino County. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 62 THE COUNTY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CORONER INVESTIGATORS FOR THE BACKLOG OF UNIDENTIFIED BODIES. 07- 63 COMPLETE REMODELING OF THE APPLE VALLEY FACILITY AND HAVE THE REAL ESTATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATE OPTION TO PURCHASE FACILITY. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 55 IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ( ICE) BACKGROUND The Immigration Customs Enforcement ( ICE) Unit is administrated by the Sheriff of the County of San Bernardino. Operations began January 2006 at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga only. The mission is to screen all prisoners booked at the facility to determine immigration status. San Bernardino County was the first to initiate the program in California. FINDINGS The Unit, consisting of nine specialists and one supervisor, is in operation Monday through Friday, 5: 00 a. m. until midnight at the West Valley Detention Center only. The Unit is supervised by the Sheriff’s Department. The specialists must be bilingual and attend ICE training, which is funded by the Federal government. They receive no extra pay or allowance to serve in these positions. They also are required to have a high secret clearance. Only the ICE specialists are authorized access to the computers and files. All operations are monitored by Federal ICE personnel. Adequate office and work space is provided. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 64 EXPAND THE ICE PROGRAM TO INCLUDE ALL SHERIFF’S JAIL BOOKING FACILITIES. 07- 65 CONSIDER PROVIDING STIPENDS TO ICE SPECIALISTS. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 56 SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS UNIT BACKGROUND The Sheriff’s Scientific Investigation Division provides support in the investigation of crimes committed within the County of San Bernardino. Division personnel have been commended for their expertise and assistance in solving crimes. This includes evidence monitoring, crime scene investigation, photos, evidence gathering, ballistics testing, and the analysis and testing of DNA. FINDINGS The workspace area is not adequate for the amount of investigative services that the division provides. The FBI recommends that there be 1,000 square feet of space for each analyst, but the current facility has 46 analysts in 15,226 square feet. There are currently only 10 crime scene investigators but more are needed. Evidence is brought to the facility from all Sheriff and police agencies in the County and is stored on site. One particular concern is the area where evidence vehicles are stored. They are housed outside in an unprotected area and are severely compromised by weather, animals and vandalism. The last two Grand Juries have recommended that something should be done to make the area more secure. The Sheriff’s Department currently supplies all kits for evidence gathering to all law enforcement agencies in San Bernardino County for blood alcohol, sex offense, DNA swabs and blood tubes at no charge. A digital server is needed that would download and secure all photos. Photos are currently unsecured and some evidence has appeared on websites. This would eliminate the physical storage of all photos, which occupies substantial space. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 66 HIRE ADDITIONAL DNA ANALYSTS AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS. 07- 67 PROVIDE AN AREA INSIDE A WAREHOUSE OR INVESTIGATE CONSTRUCTION OF A MORE FEASIBLE WAY TO HOUSE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN CRIMES. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 57 07- 68 CHARGE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES A NOMINAL FEE FOR ALL EVIDENCE KITS. 07- 69 PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A DIGITAL SERVER TO DOWNLOAD AND SECURE ALL PHOTOS. SHERIFF’S TRAINING CENTER/ ACADEMY BACKGROUND The 23- week basic Academy training program lasts 920 hours and is considered by California Peace Officer Standards and Training ( POST) to be one of the top basic academies in the State. POST has recognized the need for peace officers to have strong values of leadership, ethics, and community policing. The curriculum and format has been recognized as the standard for all the other basic academy programs in the State. This past year, 121 students completed the basic Academy program. FINDINGS The Academy trains recruits for the Sheriff’s Department and as well as other police departments. Class sizes vary from 40 to 70 students. Recruits at the Academy spend 40 hours a week in the training program. One of the most difficult areas of training is report writing. San Bernardino Community College provides an instructor to assist in educating the recruits in this area. There are four academies conducted each year. The training center consists of 650 acres on three different sites. Some of the facilities are old, in poor condition and have mold issues that are being resolved. Sewers have to be pumped every day. There is an occasional flooding problem area during heavy rains. Transporting personnel into the grounds by helicopter has been 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 58 necessary when flood occurs. An alternative route west of the facility is currently under development and could provide an alternate route. The Academy offers training in other areas: Advanced Officer Training, Mounted Enforcement, Firearms Training, Motorcycle Training, Driver Training and Advanced Defensive Driving. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 70 DEVELOP AN ALTERNATE, FLOOD FREE ROUTE, INTO THE GROUND OF THE SHERIFF’S TRAINING FACILITY. 07- 71 REPAIR BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN POOR CONDITION AND REMOVE MOLD. public and support services COMMITTEE Back – Ron Brooks, Victor Edinburgh, Kenneth Taylor- Chair Center – Roderic Moers, William Howard, Burrel Woodring Front – Lois Long, Carol Sharp Not pictured – Marianne Della Marna, Clyde Metzler 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 59 PUBLIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES COMMITTEE The Public and Support Services Group ( PSSG) was formed during a County organizational restructuring approved by the Board of Supervisors in May 2005. This group includes most departments having a strong interface with the general public, as well as a number of internal support departments. PSSG Administration coordinates the administrative and budget activities of fourteen County departments charged with providing services to the public and to other County departments. The departments of PSSG that were reviewed are as follows: Agriculture/ Weights and Measures Airports Architecture and Engineering County Fire County Library County Museum Fleet Management Land Use Services • Building and Safety • Code Enforcement • Planning Regional Parks Registrar of Voters Special Districts The departments not reviewed are as follows: Facilities Management Public Works • Surveyor • Transportation/ Flood Control • Waste Systems Division Real Estate Services The actions of the PSSG Committee resulted in the following findings and recommendations. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 60 COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CONFIRE JPA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER BACKGROUND The San Bernardino County Fire Department’s CONFIRE Joint Powers Agreement ( JPA) Communications Center ( Comm Center), is located in the City of Rialto, southwest of the Rialto Municipal Airport. It is located in the same security complex as the County Office of Emergency Services. Its primary mission is to provide 24/ 7 direct Fire/ Emergency Medical Services ( EMS) dispatch services. Member agencies of the CONFIRE JPA are San Bernardino County Fire Department and all 36 consolidated fire county districts, plus fire departments for the cities of Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands and Rialto. They also contract with Running Springs and Twentynine Palms fire districts for this service. The Comm Center is also the operational area dispatch center for several County departments. It is also responsible for mutual aid dispatching requests and it handles all air ambulance calls and multi- casualty incidents for this area. FINDINGS The Center is now in a 5- year- old permanent Butler- built type building. They were located in a nearby temporary building with 9- 1- 1 and Sheriff Dispatchers. The Comm Center has 58 personnel assigned with approximately 26 on duty at any one time. They have eight radio dispatchers and two intake personnel. They work 12- hour shifts and are cross- trained in all systems. Qualified dispatchers are in great demand and have a significant turnover in the public service field. County Fire and the Sheriff’s Department have been awarded a $ 300,000 Homeland Security grant. It provided a Request for Proposal ( RFP) to hire consulting services for the new joint communications center for County Fire and County Sheriff. The contract has been awarded to DMJM Designs/ AECEM in Orange, California, and the results of the study will be completed by December 31, 2007. The study will recommend a permanent location, combining services of the two locations, the financing and time frame for the new center along with other recommendations. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 61 Past Grand Jury recommendations were reviewed with the Comm Center Director. Mostly those recommendations were concerns of security and overcrowding at the center. Even though some of those conditions still exist, the proposed joint center that is being planned with the Sheriff’s Department will address and solve most of those concerns. The department is small and little known and the public needs to be informed of this useful and valuable department. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 72 REVAMP THE PAY SCALES AND BENEFITS TO BETTER RETAIN DISPATCHERS. THIS WILL ALSO HELP IN RECRUITING EMPLOYEES. 07- 73 ACT PROMPTLY TO IMPLEMENT THE STUDY OF THE COMM CENTER. 07- 74 INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THIS UNIQUE AND VALUABLE DEPARTMENT. Support Services Center, Hazardous Material Division, and Sewell Training Center BACKGROUND There are three County Fire Centers located at the San Bernardino International Airport ( SBIA) on approximately 10 acres leased from the airport authority. The facility consists of a mixture of old original hangars and temporary manufactured buildings. The Support Service Center provides three support activities: Vehicle Services ( repair and outfitting of all fire engines and support vehicles), Warehouse Services and Facilities Maintenance. The Hazardous Materials Center is responsible for routine inspections, operating household hazardous waste collection facilities and responds to citizen complaints about hazardous waste problems. This operation is recognized by the state and federal government as a leader in household hazardous waste management. The Sewell Training Center, in conjunction with Crafton Hills College, has 11 weeks of classwork encompassing all aspects of real- life firefighting techniques that includes 480 hours of field training. The Center provides three fire academies per year. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 62 FINDINGS The SBIA Joint Powers Authority consists of representatives from the cities of Loma Linda, Colton, Highland, San Bernardino, and the County of San Bernardino. The SBIA Authority has notified the County that they are not renewing the lease they have had with County Fire since 1995. The lease called for 10 years, plus two three- year options. The last three- year option will expire in 2011. According to SBIA, “ with the closure of Rialto Airport, we are placing some aircraft oriented business on our site. In 2011, we may need to acquire the County Fire facilities space for our SBIA use for aircraft placement and aviation use.” In addition, SBIA reported, “ County Fire is considered non- aviation and consequently, the FAA ( who have oversight on leases at the airport) will not support a lease renewal.” SBIA is uncertain whether another of their off- airport sites will be available to relocate the three centers. In the County Fire Business Plan for 2006- 07, Goal Six recommends the following steps to complete the facilities relocation: “( a) Perform a needs assessment and space allocation study; ( b) Research available real estate based on space allocation study; ( c) Estimate project cost and identify potential revenue sources to fund relocation of a facility; and ( d) Present recommendations to Board of Supervisors for viable options.” County Fire is involved in a reorganization of 36 fire districts into four regions. The application is before LAFCO ( Local Agency Formation Commission) and should be completed this year. LAFCO informs the Grand Jury that with some minor adjustments, it should be before the Board of Supervisors sometime this fall. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 75 EXPLORE WITH SAN BERNARDINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON ALTERNATE OFF- AIRPORT RELOCATION SITES. 07- 76 EXECUTE 2006- 07 BUSINESS PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RELOCATION OF THREE COUNTY FIRE COMMUNICATION CENTERS AND PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. 07- 77 COMPLETE THE REORGANIZATION OF THE 36 COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS THAT IS BEFORE LAFCO. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 63 LAND USE SERVICES BACKGROUND The Grand Jury received complaints on the responsibilities and duties of the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department. This department has a staff of approximately 200 employees. They have four divisions: Current Planning, Advance Planning, Building and Safety, which is responsible for the issuance of permits, and Code Enforcement, which regulates and enforces these codes. The main complaint was regarding the County Development Codes provisions for native plant protection and allegedly illegal removal of Joshua trees and other native plants ( S. B. Ordinance 3341, County of San Bernardino Development Code, Title 8, Division 3, 83.10.080,( c),( 1),( A),( B), and Division 6, 86.09.090,( b),( 4),( 5),( 6)). FINDINGS During an interview with the Department, it was revealed that they have a serious shortage of professional planners due to salary competition from the private sector. This creates difficulty in recruiting new staff members. It was also disclosed that other than Cal Poly Pomona, there is no college in this area that offers a dedicated planning career curriculum. The Grand Jury found that many developers of both large and small developments are removing and destroying numerous Joshua trees and other native plants that are under the ordinances of protecting native trees and plants. It is the responsibility of Code Enforcement to enforce these ordinances within the County and local law enforcement to enforce the codes within their jurisdictions. The investigation found that because there is an apparent lack of code enforcement, it may be costing the County a substantial amount of revenue as well as the loss of protected trees and plants. The technology of aerial photos/ GPS shows plant growth on larger developments. The system is newly in place, but not yet widely used. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 64 RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 78 MAKE AN EFFORT TO NOTIFY AREA UNIVERSITIES THAT THE COUNTY HAS A SERIOUS NEED FOR PLANNERS; IT SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER OFFERING GRANTS AND SCHOLARSHIPS TO QUALIFIED STUDENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR MULTIYEAR COMMITMENTS TO THE COUNTY WITH FULL- TIME EMPLOYMENT AS AN ULTIMATE GOAL. 07- 79 WHEN A LAND USE PERMIT IS PULLED, REQUIRE PRE- INSPECTION BEFORE THE WORK BEGINS ON LARGE AND SMALL DEVELOPMENTS. INFORM ALL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF CODES AND LAWS REGARDING PROTECTED PLANTS AND TREES. THESE AGENCIES ARE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THESE ORDINANCES AND COLLABORATE ON ENFORCEMENT WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS. 07- 80 THE EXISTING TECHNOLOGY OF AERIAL PHOTOS/ GPS BE USED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT. 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 65 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS BACKGROUND The Grand Jury investigated the Registrar of Voters ( ROV) to look at issues concerning the last election. In order to do a comprehensive investigation, it was concluded that the Grand Jury follow the election process and get an understanding of all the pre- election requirements. Specifically, the Grand Jury attended the Logic and Accuracy testing of election procedures, observed the voting process election night, and interviewed the ROV and staff following the election. FINDINGS The temperature in the ROV warehouse did not maintain the required 78 degrees. This temperature requirement is critical because of the temperature- sensitive paper of the VeriVoter printer attached to the Direct Recording Electronic ( DRE) machine. The printed record of each vote cast from the voting machine is the backup counting of all the votes cast and, therefore, must be relied upon if there is a recount or challenge to the DRE machine. Part of the Logic and Accuracy testing was testing a small sample ballot procedure. The ballots are run through eight scanners in the absentee ballot counting room. The process should guarantee that the optical scanners were accurately reading the test ballots. It was noticed that some of the optical scanners would shred and crumple the test ballots, requiring the ROV to duplicate the damaged test ballots in accordance with the Elections Code. The ROV makes a complete check of each DRE machine to see if it is set to “ 0”. The DRE machine remains sealed inside and outside during the actual election process. The Grand Jury participated in a Logic and Accuracy testing process in which individual votes of the different precincts were cast. They were afforded the opportunity to observe the votes they actually cast and the VeriVoter printer attached to the DRE machine. These votes were tallied and verified on the machine attached to the DRE in a printed format and simultaneously stored in a cartridge that is built into the DRE unit itself. The ROV has recently received funding from the Board of Supervisors for a remodel of the facility. The statement from ROV was that some of the funding will be 2006- 2007 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 66 used to set and maintain the correct storage temperature for the temperature- sensitive paper from the voting machine. The ROV is aware that issues emerged countywide regarding the election, which included a small number of DRE's being inoperable, VeriVoters running out of paper and shortage of paper ballots especially when lines began to grow longer. The ROV stated that staff is aware of these issues and will be better prepared and equipped for the next election. The ROV reported that the training of a pool of steady workers is an ongoing challenge and a specific concern at each election, as each election is different. New technology is constantly improving and new advances assume that there can be “ glitches.” Security cameras have been installed throughout the facility but will not be operational until the completion of the office remodel project indicated above. Once activated, the monitoring of cameras will be done at the ROV facility by ROV staff. RECOMMENDATIONS 07- 81 UPGRADE THE TEMPERATURE CONTROL IN THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS WAREHOUSE TO MAINTAIN A CONSTANT 78 DEGREES. 07- 82 UPGRADE BALLOT- COUNTING SCANNERS. 07- 83 DURING THE ELECTION PROCESS: ( 1) PREVENT THE VOTING MACHINES FROM RUNNING OUT OF PRINT PAPER AND MALFUNCTIONING; ( 2) ASSURE THAT THERE WILL BE NO SHORTAGE OF PAPER BALLOTS COUNTY- WIDE; ( 3) OFFER YEAR- ROUND TRAINING; AND, ( 4) ACTIVATE THE SECURITY SYSTEM. APPENDIX i ABOUT THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GRAND JURY The San Bernardino County Grand Jury is a body of 19 citizens who are charged and sworn to investigate County matters of civil concern as well as inquire into public offenses committed or triable within the County. The Grand Jury’s duties, powers, responsibilities, qualifications and selection processes are outlined in the Penal Code of California § 888 et seq. Duties The Grand Jury reviews and evaluates procedures, methods and systems utilized by local government to determine whether they can be made more efficient and effective. It may examine any aspect of the County government or a city government, including special legislative districts and joint powers agencies, to ensure that the best interests of San Bernardino County residents are being served. The Grand Jury may inquire into written complaints brought to it by the public. The Grand Jury functions lawfully only as a body; no individual member acting alone has any power or authority. Meetings of the Grand Jury are not open to the public, and discussions and voting are required by law to be kept private and confidential. The Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to inquire into the condition and management of the detention facilities within the County; investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of county and other local public agencies, officers, departments or functions; inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers; and, submit a final report of its finding and recommendations no later than the end of its term to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Agencies to which these recommendations are directed are required to comment on both the findings and the specific recommendations. The Grand Jury may request the issuance by the Superior Court of subpoenas. The Grand Jury may conduct hearings to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to bring an indictment charging a person with a public offense. However, the District Attorney usually calls for impanelment of separate juries drawn from the petit ( regular trials) jury pool to bring criminal indictments. Qualifications A Grand Juror must be a citizen of the United States; be at least 18 years old; be a resident of California and San Bernardino County for at least one year immediately ii prior to selection; possess ordinary intelligence, sound judgment, and good character, and, possess a sufficient knowledge of the English language to communicate both orally and in writing. A Grand Juror cannot be serving as a trial juror in any California court; have been discharged as a Grand Juror in any California court within one year of the beginning date of service, July 1; have been convicted of malfeasance in office, any felony or other high crimes, or be serving as an elected public official. Other desirable qualities of a Grand Juror are good health; open- mindedness; sensitivity to and concern for the view of others; skill in working with others in a group setting; interest in and knowledge of community affairs; skill and experience in fact finding; skill and experience in report writing; working knowledge of computers, and general knowledge of the responsibilities, function, and authority of county and city governments. Commitment The complex, diverse responsibilities of Grand Jurors make it necessary to give a serious commitment to the time requirements. The Grand Jury term is for one year and the usual work week is three to four days. Additionally, attendance at some evening meetings may be required. Jurors are provided with meeting facilities and adjacent parking in San Bernardino. Remuneration Jurors are paid per diem ( currently $ 25 per day) based on actual days worked and provided free parking. Holidays, vacation, and other time off are taken without remuneration. Mileage is reimbursed for travel between Jurors’ residences and the Grand Jury office and for travel on business of the Grand Jury. Application Process Any interested citizen who meets the required qualifications and is able to make the time commitment should request an application from the Grand Jury Office in writing to the Grand Jury Assistant, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, Room 200, San Bernardino, CA 92415- 0243. You can also find the application on the Grand Jury website at www. sbcounty. gov/ grandjury. Selection Process Panels of judges review applicants for Grand Jury service. Every effort is made to recruit men and women from all socio- economic levels, ethnic and age groups. Applicants are judged on the knowledge, skills and abilities required for successful performance as a Grand Juror. iii Applicants who are found to be best qualified, interested and available to serve will be given a background check by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office and become a finalist for the list of potential Grand Jurors, which may not exceed 30 names. In order to comply with the law, potential Grand Jurors are selected from the County Supervisorial Districts in proportion to the population of those districts. In San Bernardino County, six applicants from each of the five Supervisorial Districts are named to the Grand Jury panel. The 30 persons selected will constitute the Grand Jury panel and are summoned to appear in court where all names are placed in a lottery draw. The first 19 names chosen become the next San Bernardino County Grand Jury. The remaining names are retained for use as alternates when necessary. Shortly before the beginning of the Grand Jury term of service, an orientation process is conducted. The presiding judge of the Superior Court selects the foreperson, with all other officers chosen by the Jury itself. Organization To carry out its responsibilities, the Grand Jury generally organizes itself into committees. Areas of focus may include administration, finance, education, environment, health, law enforcement, and social services. The Foreperson is appointed by the Presiding Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court from among the jurors. The Grand Jury determines its rules of procedure. For more information, please visit the Grand Jury website at www. sbcounty. gov/ grandjury |
| PDI.Date | 2007 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2007 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2006-2007. |
| OCLC number | 144613424 |
Tags
Add tags for County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report
Comments
Post a Comment for County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...